Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

The Clerk, at the Table, informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting:

Whereupon Major MILNER, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING

SUMMER TIME

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. POPPLEWELL) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order, 1949, be made in the form of the Draft laid before Parliament, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of the Summer Time Act, 1947.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION STATION, BIRMINGHAM

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Postmaster-General when it is hoped to start regular transmission from the new Birmingham television station; what will be the range of this station; and whether he expects that first class reception will be obtainable at Shrewsbury.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): The B.B.C. expects to start regular television transmissions from the new station at Sutton Coldfield in the autumn of this year, and subject to reasonably satisfactory local conditions, people should be able to get good reception up to about 50 miles from the station. The Corporation think that good reception should be obtained at Shrewsbury

except where local conditions are particularly unfavourable.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Kingston-upon-Thames

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Postmaster-General how many applications for installation of a telephone were outstanding in Kingston-upon-Thames at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: At the beginning of this year 400 applications for telephone service were outstanding in the borough of Kingston-upon-Thames.

York Area

Mr. Wadsworth: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will give consideration to increasing the number of men employed and the equipment available for the installation of telephone services in the York telephone area, in order to reduce the large number of applications for a telephone service and the heavy arrears of urgent work, including service to farms, at present outstanding.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Constant attention is given to the possibility of strengthening the engineering force and increasing equipment supplies in individual Telephone Areas to meet special local needs. In view, however, of the restricted supplies of telephone plant available for home use and of the heavy pressure of work throughout the country, I regret that it is not possible at present to make any substantial change in the York Area.

Mr. Wadsworth: Is the Minister aware that from the replies which have been received from the York area and the Postmaster-General through myself, a large number of farmers in the York area and particularly in the East Riding of Yorkshire seem to have no hope of having the telephone at all in the near future, and that this is restricting their activities and is placing a severe penalty upon them?

Mr. Paling: I should like to be able to give these farmers telephones. It is a fact that we have had a tremendous number of applications from farmers in the York area, but when I was up there a month ago we seemed to be well up to our target.

Lieut-Commander Gurney Braith-waite: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the waiting list for the East Riding at the moment is greater or less than it was 12 months ago?

Mr. Paling: In some places it is tending to grow.

Mr. William Shepherd: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman is hampered by capital cuts; and is he going to kick up a big row this time with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to get a bigger allocation for his Department?

Mr. Grimston: The Postmaster-General referred to being up to his target. Can he give some indication of what his target is in terms of the time required to catch up with these applications?

Mr. Paling: Not without notice.

Harrow

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the Wordsworth telephone exchange is unable to accommodate further subscribers, he will provide a relief exchange in Harrow.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Additional equipment is being installed in the Wordsworth exchange and should be available for service about the end of the year. A relief manual exchange, named Underhill, already exists in Harrow.

Mr. Skinnard: But is the Postmaster-General aware that the relief manual exchange deals chiefly with the Western half of Harrow and that the Eastern half has had no relief as yet?

Mr. Paling: Yes, I am aware of that, but the fact is that the telephone exchange is full now and it will take some time to extend it.

HELICOPTER MAIL SERVICE, ORKNEY

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the possibility of introducing a helicopter service this summer for the delivery of mails from Kirkwall to the islands in Orkney.

Mr. Wilfred Palings: A service as suggested has already been considered, but

since helicopter mail services are still in the experimental stage I regret that the hon. Member's suggestion cannot be adopted.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a helicopter service was run by the Navy and was a complete success throughout the war, and would it not be better to carry out the experimental work in areas where the greatest good is likely to flow to the largest number of people?

Mr. Paling: We think we are doing that but, of course, we have to make the helicopter reasonably safe, and we must have great regularity before we can adopt it for helicopter mails.

Mr. Henry Usborne: How soon is it expected to have a helicopter service in operation?

Mr. Palings: I cannot say.

Mr. Grimston: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate if the experiments so far carried out are a success, or are there many troubles developing?

Mr. Paling: In the main, I think they are a success.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Service Gratuity

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will increase the gratuity of £100 payable to an airman who completes 12 years' service with the Colours and four on the Reserve, to take account of the fall in the value of money and the rise in pay which have taken place since the sum of £100 was fixed.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I regret I am not able to accept the hon. Member's suggestion.

Sir I. Fraser: Is it not a fact that this sum of money, granted before the last war to compensate a man who, when he went out of the Service, had not served long enough to get a pension, is now worth half of what it was?

Mr. Henderson: I am not prepared to accept the latter part of that question.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: What would be the cost involved if the right hon. and learned Gentleman accepted the suggestion of my hon. Friend?

Mr. Hendersons: That would depend upon the amount of the increase.

Mr. George Wards: Is the Minister aware that the primary object of this gratuity is to help a man to establish himself in civil life, to buy furniture, household goods, etc. What possible use is £100 to him for this purpose?

Mr. Henderson: I am not prepared to suggest that £100 is a sacrosanct sum but, none the less, it was the figure considered desirable for all three Services in 1945 and cannot be altered unilaterally.

Airfield, Changi

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Air what was the cost involved and the money spent in the development of the airfield at Changi on the Straits of Johore.

Mr. A. Henderson: The original intention was to develop Changi as a joint R.A.F. and civil airport but owing to site difficulties it has recently been decided to abandon this plan and to limit the development of the airport primarily to R.A.F. needs. This has involved a revision of the main contract, and negotiations with the contractor are continuing. I cannot, therefore, say anything about the expenditure already incurred at this stage or the total cost of the revised scheme.

Service and Civil Flights (Co-ordination)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Air what co-ordination of flight plans he is maintaining between the Royal Air Force and civil aircraft.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Air what regulations exist instructing Royal Air Force training aircraft to avoid regular routes of civilian aircraft; and to what extent the Royal Air Force co-operates with civil aviation ground control.

Mr. Scollan: asked the Secretary of State for Air, in view of the recent accident at Coventry, what steps are being taken to keep military planes from exercising on civil aviation services routes.

Mr. A. Henderson: As the answer is somewhat long, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Rankin: Could my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the statement he proposes to issue will indicate whether, if any interchange of communication is made between the two Air Forces, that information is immediate?

Mr. Henderson: The reason why my reply is so long that I prefer, with permission, to circulate it, is because I have set out fairly fully the details of the organisation which has been set up to cover these matters between the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Royal Air Force. I would not be able to say that the reply indicates that the information is passed immediately, but I assume that there is a sufficient degree of efficiency to justify the acceptance of the statement.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the fact that this Question and Question No. 19 refer to a specific accident, will the Minister assure us that there will be a full public court of inquiry into the loss of these aeroplanes, as was the case with the loss of the Dutch liner at Prestwick?

Mr. Hendersons: The question of a court of public inquiry is a matter for the Ministry of Civil Aviation, but an inquiry is taking place and, in addition, there is the Service court of inquiry which is being held under King's Regulations.

Mr. Scollan: I would like to ask the Minister why the second part of my Question No. 19, which asks
what steps are being taken to keep military planes from exercising on civil aviation services routes,
cannot be answered without circulating the reply?

Mr. Hendersons: I am quite prepared to give that part of the reply. In view of the fact that training aircraft may be required to fly long distances over land, and that the area of this country is limited in extent, it is not always practicable to route training aircraft away from civil aviation routes.

Mr. Scollan: Is the Minister aware that at the present time not long distance distance flights, but ordinary exercises, mean that planes are coming up through the cloud ceiling not 50 yards from the ordinary civil plane flying down


to London from Renfrew, and that could obviously be stopped under the long distance flights he mentions.

Mr. Henderson: I am not prepared to accept, without further evidence, that that is the case.

Mr. Scollan: I have seen it.

Following is the statement:

In view of the fact that training aircraft may be required to fly long distances over land and that the area of this country is limited in extent, it is not always practicable to route training aircraft away from civil aviation routes. All aircraft are at all times bound to observe the rules and regulations framed to secure the safety of aircraft in flight, and in conditions of good visibility these regulations by themselves provide adequate safeguards against the danger of collision. In bad visibility, however, or when R.A.F. aircraft have to pass through control zones, or in other special circumstances which are detailed below, their flight plans are communicated to the Air Traffic Control Centres.

For air traffic control purposes the United Kingdom is divided into five Flight Information Regions, each of which is controlled by one Air Traffic Control Centre. At each Air Traffic control Centre there is a combined R.A.F. and Ministry of Civil Aviation staff who work in the same control room and who are responsible for co-ordinating the movements of R.A.F. and civil aircraft in accordance with information regarding flight plans supplied to them.

The procedure is for flight plans submitted by the R.A.F. and civil aircraft to be forwarded to the Air Traffic Control Centre of the Flight Information Region in which the aerodrome of departure is located. This A.T.C.C. passes the relevant information to the Air Traffic Control Centre in the Flight Information Region at which the aircraft intends to land and/or over which it intends to fly. The information is not, however, passed to other civil or military aerodromes, nor in fact would such a procedure be possible. Both civil and R.A.F. flight plans are treated in precisely the same manner by the Air Traffic Control Centres.

Flight plans are submitted by R.A.F. aircraft, including training aircraft, in the following circumstances:

(a) If the flight is scheduled to pass through, or land at an airfield in a Control Zone (e.g. the area round places such as London, Manchester and Liverpool in which there is a high density of air traffic.
(b) If the flying involves night flying without lights, cloud flying, air firing or bombing, etc., or is in other respects hazardous, or if conditions of visibility are poor.
(c) If the flight is outside the United Kingdom.

The procedure for air traffic control is constantly under review by the Air Ministry and Ministry of Civil Aviation with a view to effecting any possible improvements.

Bombing Range, Calshot

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air what are his intentions regarding the proposed aircraft practice bombing ranges at Calshot or Warren Flats.

Mr. A. Henderson: The proposal to use a site at either Calshot or Warren Flats as an aircraft bombing range was the subject of a public inquiry on 23rd and 24th February. No decision will be taken in the matter until the report of the inquiry has been received.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he considers this matter, bear in mind the presence of large oil installations near Calshot, the narrowness of the shipping channel leading up to the Solent, and the resentment of people while recognising the necessity for bombing training.

Mr. Henderson: I am quite sure that that fact will be taken into consideration by the tribunal, but I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that if we are to have bombing training we must have bombing sites, and to every site put forward there is always an objection. That does not make the task of the Air Ministry any easier.

Commissions (University Entrants)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many university entrants for the Royal Air Force have been granted permanent commissions since 1st January, 1946.

Mr. A. Henderson: The number of candidates granted permanent commissions under the university entry scheme since 1st January, 1946, is 25. In addition many university graduates who served during the war on emergency commissions or, later, on extended service or short service commissions, have been granted permanent commissions, but it is not possible to ascertain the number without a comprehensive examination of the records of individual officers.

Air-Commodore Harvey: While recognising that the figures given are extremely low—25 since January, 1946—and the fact that the Cadet College at Cranwell is only two-thirds full, although free of charge, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman what he proposes to do to increase recruiting both from the schools and from the universities?

Mr. Henderson: We are doing what we can to encourage recruiting, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, but it is quite impossible to compel people to come into these schools if they do not want to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Committees (Reports)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when he expects to have the reports of the Helmore and Wilcock Committee published.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) on 15th December last, except that discussions with other Government Departments concerned are nearing finality and that the two reports will be published as soon as possible.

Scheduled Flights (Information)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation to what extent he makes known the movements of civil aircraft on scheduled flights to other interested Ministries and private flyers.

Mr. Lindgren: Movements of civil aircraft on scheduled flights are notified to the appropriate Joint Air Traffic Control

Centre. Full information about these movements is available to private flyers or pilots of private or other aircraft at either the Joint Air Traffic Control Centre or from the briefing unit at an aerodrome.

Mr. Rankins: Is my hon. Friend aware that his right hon. and learned Friend has just said that this interchange of information is not immediate, and that even a lapse of time of 15 minutes or less creates a dangerous position for both types of aircraft?

Mr. Lindgren: The OFFICIAL REPORT will determine whether my right hon. and learned Friend said that. Without that Report I would decline to accept that he did say that. I understood the answer to be that without definite information, he was not prepared to answer.

Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the exchange of information with regard to civil and military aircraft from day to day is immediate?

Mr. Lindgren: That is not within my power. These are joint civil and military air traffic control centres, and one assumes that air force discipline is such that a commander at one station supplies his centre with the information immediately.

Mr. Maclay: It really is not good enough in a matter of this kind to assume that everything is all right; can we be assured that the two Ministries concerned are in active contact to make certain that these precautions are being taken?

Mr. Lindgren: Most certainly, Sir.

Passengers, Bovingdon (Reception Arrangements)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is aware that the 12 passengers, including two foreign diplomats, who landed at Bovingdon on 6th February at 11.30 owing to fog at London Airport, had to wait 3¼ hours for a passport officer and transport, during which time they were not allowed to visit the village nor given lunch, and were guarded by a policeman except while he went for his own lunch, when they were left alone; and whether better arrangements will be made in future.

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir; I regret the exceptional inconveniences suffered by the passengers on this occasion which were due to a variety of causes. I have taken steps to ensure that there shall be no repetition.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that one of the diplomats, who was extremely hungry and annoyed, rang up the Ministry of Civil Aviation—it was a Sunday morning—but was told there was nobody on duty who could grapple with the matters; and should not there be a duty officer, as in other Departments, with full authority to deal with, such a situation?

Mr. Lindgren: There is a duty officer.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not very serious that these people were left alone while the policeman went for lunch? They might have escaped.

Clairways, Limited

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether, in view of the further information supplied by the hon. Member for Dumfries, he will now make a further statement in regard to Clairways, Limited.

Mr. Lindgren: I regret that when I spoke in the House on 26th January, I used the term "official receiver" in relation to C.L. Air Surveys, Limited. I understand that the true position is that the debenture holder of the company has put in a receiver and manager.

Mr. Macpherson: While I accept the expression of regret of the hon. Gentleman—which, I think, might have gone a little further—is he aware that it is not really in accord with the traditions of this House to make a scurrilous attack at the very last minute of an Adjournment Debate, when it cannot be replied to, and will he give a full apology for that attack?

Mr. Lindgren: I do not think it is a scurrilous attack to use the term "official receivers"—which, I agree, relates to a compulsory winding up—when I should have used the term "receiver and manager." But if the debenture holder has put in a receiver and manager I do not think anything I said can do much more harm.

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman still has left the impression that the company is being wound up, which is very far from the case. It is a going concern. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is it going?"] Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is a going concern and is being run successfully?

Mr. Lindgren: If it is so successful, why is the debenture holder so doubtful that he puts in a receiver and manager?

Gander Aerodrome (Transfer)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what steps have been taken to reserve fifth freedom rights for the use of Gander Aerodrome during the time that consideration has been given to the transfer of this aerodrome to Canadian control.

Mr. Lindgren: Discussions with the Canadian Government about this and other matters arising from the transfer of Gander to Canadian control, are now in progress at Ottawa.

Mr. Coopers: Is it intended that in due time a report will be made of the discussions, or will merely an indication be given that freedom rights have been preserved for this country?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. The report will be made because, as well as our own, there are the freedom rights associated with bilateral agreements.

COLONEL RHYS DAVIES

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. PRITT:

26. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Colonel Rhys Davies, who is lecturing in the United States of America and is employed and paid by His Majesty's Government for that purpose, in a lecture delivered in Minnesota about the end of January, misrepresented the circumstances which the election of 1945 was held, attacked the workers in general, and accused the Labour Party of shirking military service during the war in order to prepare for the election; and what steps he will take in relation to the further employment of this individual.

Mr. Rhys Davies: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that some of the statements mentioned in this Question have been attributed to me, may I say that I have never been a Colonel; that I have not been even a private soldiers; and that I have lectured in America, but I have never received a penny piece from His Majesty's Government for doing so?

BULGARIA (PROTESTANT PASTORS, ARREST)

Mr. Hollis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been received to His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaire's letter concerning the arrest of the 15 Bulgarian Protestant pastors; and if he is now satisfied that the detention does not constitute a breach of Article 2 of the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I have nothing to add to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 28th February to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross).

Mr. Hollis: Since it has become evident that the Bulgarian Government have no intention whatsoever of replying to the representations of His Majesty's Government, can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the matter will not be allowed to rest there?

Mr. Bevin: I am continually protesting against this kind of conduct, but I cannot, do any more than I have done.

Sir Ronald Ross: Do not the latest Press reports bear out the suggestion that these unfortunate men have been subjected to physical ill-treatment?

Mr. Bevin: I do not know how the operation is performed. I have heard it said that they do not try anybody who is not guilty.

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether, in view of the concern of the hon. Member opposite for the heretics, he would suggest transferring these Protestant clergymen to Spain?

FORMOSA (BRITISH CONSULATE)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has a consul in Formosa or a representative

accredited to the Supreme Commander, Allied Forces, Tokyo; and what arrangements for the occupation and government of Formosa are in force pending the conclusion of a peace treaty with Japan.

Mr. Bevin: His Majesty's Consulate in Formosa is situated at Tamsui and is in charge of a regular member of His Majesty's Foreign Service. With regard to the second part of the Question, the hon. Member will be aware that one of the primary functions of the United Kingdom Liaison Mission in Tokyo is to maintain the closest possible liaison with the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. In the Cairo Declaration the Heads of the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and China declared that Formosa would be restored to China. In view of this declaration the Chinese Government have assumed the administration of Formosa pending the conclusion of a Treaty of Peace with Japan.

Mr. Teeling: If the Chinese Government have taken over Formosa temporarily, what position is our Government going to take up if by any chance the Red Government of China should get control of Formosa, since the Americans have stated that Formosa is in their line of defence?

Mr. Bevin: I must have notice of that question.

CARDINAL MINDSZENTY (APPEAL)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has concerning the appeal of Cardinal Mindszenty and the conditions under which he is existing; and what further steps he has taken to obtain satisfaction from the Hungarian Government for any breach in the treaty of peace due to the Cardinal's trial.

Mr. Bevin: The Budapest People's Court has allowed the Cardinal's appeal to go forward to the National Council of People's Courts which acts as a Court of Appeal. I have no information on the conditions under which the Cardinal is existing. As regards the last part of this Question, I have been hampered, in establishing the facts about the trial, by the exclusion from the court of a British Legation representative.

Mr. Teeling: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time is fast approaching when, if we cannot enforce Clauses which we put in peace treaties, we should bring them to the United Nations and find out what possible solution can be made; and if, on the other hand, we can in any way enforce them, such as by not taking part in trade agreements or by having no trade with those countries, does he not think the time is about to arrive for His Majesty's Government to take this course?

Mr. Bevin: The whole matter is constantly under consideration. We have not come to any conclusions about what we can do more than we are doing at present.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman fear that His Majesty's Government may be made to look ridiculous by a repeated series of fruitless and rejected protests?

Mr. Teeling: Does not the right hon. Gentleman further realise that this wretched Cardinal has now been for quite a long time in prison, and is this to go on indefinitely? The same position exists as regards the Archbishop in Yugoslavia. [An HON. MEMBER: "What does the hon. Member suggest?"] Is not this a reason why we should hasten conclusions?

Mr. Bevin: Does the hon. Member suggest we should declare war? I am not going to do that.

Dr. Segal: Could the right hon. Gentleman try to ascertain under what conditions the Cardinal is at present existing and make a statement to the House?

Mr. Bevin: I am trying to ascertain that information.

BUENOS AIRES TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the payment of interest of 5 per cent. per annum and amortisation of the capital, which was assured to shareholders of the Buenos Aires Transport Corporation by Argentine law in 1936, have not been carried out; what estimate he has of the accrued sums due to British interests; and whether he will bear these

matters in mind during the negotiations for compensation.

Mr. Bevin: The answer to the first part of this Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, no estimate has, as far as His Majesty's Government is aware, been put forward by the four British companies concerned of the total accrued sums due to them in respect of capital and arrears of interest. As regards the last part of the Question, the hon. Member will be aware from the statement made in this House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 14th February that His Majesty's Ambassador in Buenos Aires has instructions to pursue this matter with the Argentine authorities at every suitable opportunity.

BRITISH SOLDIER, GREECE (AWARD)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that ex-Staff Sergeant R. Bennett of the Grenadier Guards has been awarded the Greek Military Cross; whether he has served in the Greek Army with the authority of the British Government; whether such authority has been given to other British ex-soldiers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bevin: I understand that a Greek Corps Commander made an unauthorised award of the Greek Military Cross to Staff Sergeant R. Bennett. The Greek authorities are, however, fully aware that members of the British Armed Forces are not permitted to accept foreign decorations in peace-time. As Sergeant Bennett has never served in the Greek Army, the second part of the Question does not arise; and the answer to the third part is "No, Sir."

Mr. Piratin: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, according to the statement made to the Greek Press, quoted in this country, Sergeant Bennett was awarded this distinction because of his gallantry in action and, irrespective of the gallantry—I am discussing the action part—is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is evidence of the fact that British troops are taking part alongside the Greek Army?

Mr. Bevin: British troops are not taking part alongside the Greek Army.

Mr. Piratin: Then what is Sergeant Bennett doing?

Mr. Bevin: The hon. Member has asked me a Question. He must be courteous enough to allow me to answer, in this country at any rate. The British troops are not taking action alongside the Greek Army. I have no evidence that Sergeant Bennett took any action with the Greek Army. He was serving with the British Military Mission and helping to train them, but he did nothing in connection with operations. In my answer I have given the facts, not what is in the newspapers.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Development Boards

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many meetings of the Nigerian Central Development Board and regional development boards were held in 1948; what is the Nigerian representation on each of these bodies; and if he is satisfied that they provide an adequate means of consultation with local opinion in implementing the
10-Year Plan.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I have no detailed information. I am aware that the regional boards held a number of meetings during 1948, but I have no record of a Central Board meeting. The Finance Committee of the Legislative Council, consisting of all the unofficial members, has, however, taken a close interest in the progress of the development programme. There are four Nigerians on the Central Board, but I cannot give the African representation on the regional boards without inquiry. There are, as well, provincial development committees, with African representation, which have done useful work. The Governor is not satisfied that the boards, as at present constituted, provide a suitable and adequate means for consultation with local opinion. He has the whole matter under consideration now.

Electricity Schemes

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the proposed Nigerian Electricity Corporation has yet been established; and what progress has been made with the

electrical and hydro-electrical development provided for in the 10-Year Plan.

Mr. Creech Jones: Draft legislation for setting up the Nigerian Electricity Corporation, to manage and develop Government-owned electricity undertakings throughout Nigeria, has been prepared. Progress in the electric and hydro-electrical development projects under the 10-Year Plan has not been as fast as was hoped because of shortages of technical staff and delays in the delivery of materials and equipment. But schemes now being carried out include the extension of the Port Harcourt power station, a hydro-electric station in the Cameroons and another to supply Onitsha. The laying of the 11,000 volt underground cable from Lagos to Iju Waterworks Pumping Station has also been completed. Work to a total cost of £187,000 was carried out in 1947–48.

Mr. Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend say if the difficulties concerning technical staff and equipment are now being overcome?

Mr. Creech Jones: They are slightly easier and I hope we can get better deliveries in regard to materials.

Groundnuts Stocks (Infection)

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the transport of groundnuts on the Nigerian Railway has fallen short of the estimated carriage by over 33 per cent.; whether the supply of wagons is insufficient to carry the uninfested groundnuts; and why infested stocks are being handled in preference to lightly infested or unaffected stocks.

Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir. In the six months ending 31st January last railings exceeded estimates by 5 per cent. Shortage of wagons is still a limiting factor on railings, but more wagons are steadily being shipped to Nigeria. Infested stocks, whether heavily or lightly infested, are being fumigated and hurried out of the country to prevent the trouble from spreading, but this total amount represents less than the amount which can be moved in a fortnight, and uninfected stocks are being handled as well.

Sir R. Glyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Nigeria they say they


have been unable to get the necessary material for doing the fumigation? Will he take steps to send it out by air, so that they can deal with stocks which are in pyramid?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, my information is that full supplies of methyl-bromide have already been flown out to Kano.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: What happens to this infested stock when moved out of the country? Is it then used, or destroyed?

Mr. Creech Jones: I should require notice of a question of that kind.

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it was necessary to get infested stock out of the country quickly and I am asking for what purpose that has to be done. Is it to be used for some purpose, or is it destroyed?

Mr. Creech Jones: It is not destroyed. It can be used, but the special purpose for which it can be used I am unable to say without notice.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say with what disease the groundnuts are infested?

Mr. Creech Jones: I think it is trogoderma.

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a further statement in regard to the damage that has been done to groundnuts stocks at Kano and other depots in West Africa by the beetle, trogoderma, and what steps the West African Produce Control Board proposes to take to indemnify the merchants who have acted as agents.

Mr. Creech Jones: Infestation in varying degrees had, by 15th February, been found in 12,384 tons of groundnuts at Kano and in 1,574 tons in transit at Baro. Action is being taken to isolate and fumigate infested stocks and the actual loss can, therefore, not be determined. Except in cases of negligence, buying agents of the West African Produce Control Board are not responsible for deterioration; the second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.

Sir R. Glyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figure he has just given is short by 5,000 tons of what is infested? Is any action being taken to improve the position at Kano? What is the purpose of transferring these nuts to England, as they cannot be used when they reach here?

Mr. Creech Jones: As I understand the position, it is not that they cannot be used. They can be used for certain purposes. The figures I have just given the House are 12,384 tons, up to 15th February, but I have not the subsequent figure quoted by the hon. Member.

Brigadier Head: Would it not be a good thing, when these beetles reach this country, if they were given potatoes to eat?

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend say approximately what percentage of stocks in Kano are infected?

Mr. Creech Jones: I have not got it. The total crop is something in the neighbourhood of 300,000 tons. The number of tons infested is 12,000, and perhaps hon. Members can work it out for themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN COLONIES

Soil Erosion

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the serious loss of productive land by soil erosion in British Africa, he will set up a committee to ascertain the exact facts and to report on long term measures which must be taken.

Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir. We are far past the committee stage. The facts are well known and the measures which should be taken are well known. The difficulty lies in impressing the facts on the local populations and persuading them to take the measures. The local Governments are doing their best, but it will inevitably be a slow process. A conference will be held in Africa this year on land utilisation when soil erosion will again be one of the factors considered.

Mr. Skeffington: While one part of the remedy lies in improved methods by the African cultivator, a good deal of the remedy must be found through Government action in planning and so on, and


is my right hon. Friend satisfied that adequate steps are being taken in that direction?

Mr. Creech Jones: Oh, yes, I can give an absolute assurance on that matter.

Tanganyika (European Settlement)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the indignation felt in East Africa at the report of the visiting mission of the Trusteeship Council to Tanganyika and, in particular, at the recommendation that European settlement should be curtailed; and whether he will give an assurance that this is not the policy of His Majesty's Government.

Colonel Ponsonby: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the serious repercussions on the economic development of East Africa of the statements appearing in the official report of the United Nations Organisation Visiting Mission to Tanganyika, issued in the United States of America on 8th November last and only now available in this country; and if he will define the attitude of the Government in this matter.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Visiting Mission's report on Tanganyika has not yet been considered by the Trusteeship Council itself. His Majesty's Government will be communicating to the Council their comments on the report at an early date. Meanwhile, I wish to state that the position as regards non-African settlement is as stated by the Governor in the Legislative Council on 7th March, 1946. His Majesty's Government are prepared to agree to schemes for
non-African settlement in Tanganyika, on the understanding that the land in question is not required, or likely to be required, for African occupation, and that the schemes are economically sound. I recognise the value of non-African enterprise and that it must be viewed as an integral part of the development of the Territory as a whole. Some 100 farms had been taken up by settlers to the end of 1948 in accordance with this policy.
The report in question has, I understand, caused some apprehension in Kenya. I would again call attention to my statement in the House of Commons on 7th March, 1946, which sets out the

policy of His Majesty's Government. I am sending copies of the two statements to both hon. Members.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask if he agrees that there need be no conflict between European communities and the Africans, but that advancement of the Africans will rather depend on European supervision for some time to come.

Mr. Creech Joness: As I have said, development in Tanganyika does depend on the
co-operation of Europeans and Africans and there is no desire and no intention of departing from the policy already declared to the House in respect of the development of Tanganyika.

Mr. Stanley: Is there much help to be gained from the visit of a body whose advice, quite rightly, the Government are going to reject? Are we likely to get useful results from short visits to territories of this kind by people, many of whom have had no previous knowledge of problems of this kind?

Mr. Creech Jones: These visits are undertaken at the instance of the Trusteeship Council and it is for the administering authority to consider the recommendations made and then advise the Trusteeship Council as to the wisdom of accepting them. In this case I believe that a number of recommendations are not in accordance with our own policy and are recommendations we must oppose.

Colonel Ponsonby: Why it is that these recommendations were published in New York in November and were not available in this country for three months; and why were the recommendations subsequently not immediately denied or repudiated by His Majesty's Government, because the proposals, which were irresponsible, have done a great deal of harm, especially to the credit of Tanganyika?

Mr. Creech Jones: The report was that of the Visiting Committee of the Trusteeship Council, and obviously it had to be presented in New York. We are trying to obtain copies for the general information of the public here, but I am afraid that so far we have only been able to get hold of a limited number of copies. With regard to the procedure, it was not


appropriate for us to comment on the report until it had been properly studied in consultation with the local Government. We shall be making a statement to the Trusteeship Council when the report is brought before it for consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Trinidad (Social Services)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now say what schemes for health and unemployment have been devised by the Government of Trinidad.

Mr. Creech Jones: The final report of the Committee appointed to investigate the possibility of introducing Health and Unemployment Insurance schemes is about to be presented to the local Government. I regret that in the meantime details are not available.

Stock Farm, St. Kitts

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why over £50,000 has been spent on a stock farm at St. Kitts which produced no results and is a failure.

Mr. Creech Jones: According to my information this stock farm, far from being a failure, will prove successful although its full contribution to the Island will not be made for another year or two, when the dairy herd which had to be built up should have reached full production. It was always expected that this scheme, which was designed to help in remedying the deficiency of local milk supplies and in diversifying the agriculture of St. Kitts, would incur a loss for some years.

Mr. Reid: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that the statement was made by Sir Alan Burns, an ex-Colonial Governor and our representative at U.N.O. on the Trusteeship Council?

Mr. Creech Jones: I can only say that he is mis-informed.

Caribbean Commission (Report)

Mr. Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is intended to publish the Galleti Report on

Industrial Development in the British Territories of the Caribbean.

Mr. Creech Jones: Copies of the draft report are at present being studied by the Governments of the West Indian Colonies concerned. On receipt of their comments I shall consult the British co-Chairman of the Caribbean Commission on the question of publication.

Mr. Cooper: Since the report was completed in June, 1948, is not it important that the information should be made available while it is current, and could not a report at least be put in the Library for Members to see?

Mr. Creech Jones: The report was a confidential statement which was ordered by the Caribbean Commission. It is through our own co-Chairman. It is not a public document. As soon as the Governors are prepared to release it, it can be put in the Library of the House.

Mr. Cooper: Can my right hon. Friend say how long he expects it will be before the report will be available?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am in consultation with the Governors concerned.

FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Lord President of the Council what office or Department are responsible for the planning, design of the buildings and general layout of the 1951 Festival of Britain site; by what date are the buildings, etc., to be ready; and whether it is intended to exhibit at an early date a model so that hon. Members may have some idea of the scope and particulars of the project.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Central Office of Information is now responsible, under the general guidance of the Council of the Festival of Britain, for the planning and design of the buildings and for the general layout of the Festival Exhibition to be held on the South Bank of the Thames—to which I assume the hon. Member refers. This responsibility (and the C.O.I. Exhibition staff involved) will be transferred on 1st April to the Festival of Britain Office, which is then to receive a separate Vote. The buildings will be completed in successive


stages with a view to opening the Exhibition in May, 1951. I hope to display drawings and models of the layout of the site for hon. Members in due course.

Sir R. Glyn: Is there any truth in the story that part of the Exhibition is to be a dome one-third higher than St. Paul's and made of aluminium?

Mr. Morrisons: I would not accept the description, but I have heard of an idea floating about of a dome in aluminium, and we have under consideration the question of where we shall get the aluminium.

Mr. Nicholson: Will the Royal Fine Art Commission be kept in constant consultation from the start?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot say, but this is a project for 1951, and we had better watch the timetable.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On what ground is the Central Office of Information now held to be a competent planning authority?

Mr. Morrison: The noble Lord is ill-informed, if I may say so. It is not so much a question of planning as that the Central Office of Information is an expert exhibition authority. It is very competent in that field, and it is primarily in that respect that its services are being utilised. I presume that the noble Lord would not like us to set up another Department. That would hardly be economical.

Mr. Scollan: What proportion of this Festival is to be allotted to Scotland?

Mr. Morrison: Scotland has a special committee and is being quite active in preparation for the appropriate activities north of the Border. My hon. Friend may be assured that Scotland will not be forgotten by me, and I should not be given a chance to forget Scotland even if I wished to do so.

ARMED FORCES (SENIOR OFFICERS, PAY)

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Minister of Defence what steps he proposes to take to bring the remuneration of senior officers of the Fighting Services

more into line with the proposals in Command Paper No. 7635.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The Government intend in the light of developments generally to re-examine the position of the highest appointments in the Armed Forces, but I must make it clear that the circumstances are not necessarily the same.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Kosher Meat

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Food (1) what was the number of animals slaughtered by the Jewish method in 1948; and the total weight of meat made available by such process;
(2) how many kosher meat registrations there were in 1948; and what was the total weight of meat allowed to them for the whole year.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): About 80,000 cattle, 40,000 calves and 70,000 sheep are slaughtered annually in Great Britain by this method, producing about 20,000 tons of meat. The estimated number of registrations for kosher meat is 260,000, and the weight of meat issued to Kosher butchers in 1948 was about 5,500 tons. This is less than one half of 1 per cent. of the national meat supply. In general our arrangements mean that Jewish consumers gain a little on quality and on the other hand lose a little in quantity as compared to other consumers of meat.

T.T. Milk

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to stimulate the consumption of tuberculintested milk.

Mr. Strachey: It is rather a question of stimulating the production and effective distribution of this milk as we have difficulty in meeting the existing demand, but every effort is made by the Ministry to provide supplies of T.T. milk for those consumers who ask for it.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are producing about 19 per cent. of T.T. milk whereas we are consuming only about 9 per cent.? Will he not agree that there is a great need to stimulate consumption?

Mr. Strachey: The question is mainly one of difficulty in transporting and distributing this milk separately from other milk. That is the problem to which we are addressing ourselves.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Would not my right hon. Friend consider making a statement to assure the public that T.T. milk is not only safer, but is of better quality than ordinary milk?

Mr. Strachey: I should like to have an opportunity of doing so, and I will do so here and now.

Java Sugar

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the Minister of Food what is the estimated amount of the Java sugar crop for the present season which he expects to procures; and how this compares with last year.

Mr. Strachey: In 1948 we bought about 10,000 tons of Java sugar. We hope to get rather more this year.

Mr. De la Bère: Why not take sugar off the ration altogether? I have said it before and I will say it again.

Lettuce (Imports)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food what quantities of lettuces were imported from abroad during the last six months; whether he is aware that English lettuce growers have been unable to market their product owing to these imports; and what steps he is taking to assist them.

Mr. Strachey: In the last six months 1,996 tons of lettuces have been imported as against 23,800 tons of lettuce produced at home. Moreover in August, September and October, during the home production season, home production was 22,500 tons as against imports of one ton. In November, December and January, when home production was low, namely, 1,300 tons, imports have been 1,995 tons. These imports of lettuce have in my opinion been too small, not too large, since they have not succeeded in reducing the price to the consumer below about 10d. each, which is a very stiff price for the average housewife. Both home produced and imported lettuce of good quality is selling steadily at these prices, which I hope will now begin to fall. I cannot consider any restrictions

on the further imports of lettuce at this time.

Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that in December, growers were being offered a price of only 4d. per dozen head for lettuce, and will he say whether, before he initiated his import policy, he had full consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture?

Mr. Strachey: Yes. These consultations, of course, go on all the time.

Mr. Bramall: Does not the situation which has been revealed by the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), show the necessity for the Government to take the question of wholesale distribution into consideration?

Mr. Strachey: That is another question but a most important one.

Meals (Catering Establishments)

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Minister of Food the proportion of the population who at present obtain at least one principal meal of the day in restaurants or canteens; and whether he will do anything to help those members of the public who do not enjoy this advantage.

Mr. Strachey: Estimates derived from our Family Food Survey seem to indicate that some 30 per cent. of urban workers now take at least one meal per working day in canteens or restaurants. We give the compensating advantage of a cheese ration of some eight times the normal to those classes of rural workers who have little access to canteens, etc.

Captain Crookshank: Can the Minister say what proportion of these people other than Members of the House of Commons have their meals subsidised?

Mr. Strachey: No, I cannot give the proportion, but some canteens subsidise their meals.

Mr. Frank Byers: Is the Minister aware that there are many people in the rural areas who have no access to canteens but who, nevertheless, cannot get the cheese ration? Will he look into that question?

Mr. Strachey: We have often looked into it.

Mr. Maclean: Is the Minister aware of the considerable hardship inflicted on old-age pensioners both in urban and rural areas by the present system?

Mr. Driberg: Arising out of that supplementary question, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that one way of complying with the request contained in the second part of the Question on the Paper is to encourage local authorities to exercise their right of organising mobile canteens to serve meals to old people living alone?

Mr. Strachey: I think that that is a valuable suggestion.

Ministry Staff (Promotions)

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Minister of Food what questions, of a political nature, are put to candidates for promotion appearing before the promotions boards in his Department.

Mr. Strachey: None, Sir.

Mr. Maclean: Is the Minister aware that at a recent board in Manchester the following question was put to the candidate, "What view do you take of Mr. Strachey?" Would not he agree that this question is of a highly political nature, and contentious, and will he take steps to ensure that in future candidates are not subjected to ideological catechisms?

Mr. Strachey: I should have thought that that was a personal rather than a political question, but if the hon. Member will give particulars I will certainly look into it.

Mr. Nicholson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what answer would have been returned to that question by the Minister of Food?

Lieut-Commander Braithwaite: Are these candidates called upon to express an opinion on the merits or demerits of bulk purchase?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I should deprecate any political questions being put to these candidates, and if any instances where that has been done are brought to my attention I will certainly examine them.

Dyed Kippers

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the widespread indignation caused by this practice, he will take steps to prevent the dyeing and varnishing of kippers.

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the dissatisfaction of large sections of the community in having to accept dyed kippers in lieu of those properly cured; if he will make it compulsory for dyed kippers to be so labelled when exposed for sale; and if he will take steps to discourage the dyeing of kippers with the ultimate aim of banning their sale.

Mr. Strachey: Some people do not like dyed kippers, some people do. The dye is entirely harmless, and I can see no reason for interfering with the consumer's choice in this matter.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that have received letters from all over the country deploring the fact that dyed kippers are put on fishmongers' slabs in the same place as properly cured kippers with no means of differentiating between them; and will he answer the second part of the Question whether he will consider having the kippers labelled?

Mr. Strachey: We could consider that, but if consumers have a preference for undyed kippers they should express it by patronising those shops which supply undyed kippers.

Mrs. Middleton: Is the Minister aware that there is no consumer's choice in this matter? Housewives have to take the kippers which are available, and they are dyed kippers.

Mr. Strachey: With great respect, I do not agree with my hon. Friend in that matter. The supply of, and demand for, kippers is not out of equilibrium at the moment. It is quite possible to choose between the different supplies of kippers.

Mr. Cobb: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a kipper should only be sold as a kipper if it is smoked? If it is dyed it is not a kipper. Will he consult with the legal representatives in his Department and see whether he should not initiate proceedings against people who sell as kippers herrings which are in fact dyed and not smoked?

Mr. Strachey: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Even dyed kippers are smoked, they have to be. I should certainly take proceedings if kippers were sold which had not been smoked. They are smoked, but to a lesser degree, and then dyed. Some people prefer that process, and some people prefer the other.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the Question of my hon. Friend relating to varnishing which he has not yet answered? I do not know whether his answer is that that process is also harmless.

Mr. Strachey: We know of no instances of the varnishing of kippers. If it is done, and instances are brought to my attention, I will certainly look into the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much of this alleged indignation about dyed and varnished kippers would be removed if the advice was given to consumers to remove the cellophane wrapping first?

Mr. Strachey: I think that some people must have mistaken kippers enclosed in cellophane wrapping for varnished kippers.

Flour (Distribution)

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Minister of Food what are the reasons which have led him to the decision to restrict the distribution of flour to the individual baker to the amount allocated to the baker at the time bread rationing ended; and why, without affecting the total amount distributed, it is not possible to adjust the allocations so that the enterprising and efficient baker can expand his business and the customer buy at the baker of his choice.

Mr. Strachey: I explained the reasons for introducing the flour restriction scheme in the statement I made to the House on 21st July, 1948. It is impossible for me to undertake the task of deciding which bakers are more enterprising and efficient than others. I shall of course end the flour restriction scheme at the earliest possible moment and so restore competition amongst the bakers, which, I agree, is highly desirable.

Mr. Marlowe: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the present system

makes it quite impossible for a flourishing business to expand? It is being pegged down to an arbitrary amount fixed by the right hon. Gentleman. What is the objection of the right hon. Gentleman to efficient people trying to improve their businesses?

Mr. Strachey: Of course, I realise that but we have had to apply this flour restriction scheme whilst supplies of flour are limited. We shall get rid of it at the earliest possible moment, and that is the only way to restore competition.

Mr. Baldwin: In view of the Minister's reply to the previous Question in which he advocated competition in the sale of kippers, why does he not advocate competition in the case of bakers so that they can get the benefit of consumer choice?

Mr. Strachey: If the hon. Member had done me the honour of listening to my reply he would know that that is precisely what I did. I believe in competition among bakers and the moment that we have the flour supplies available we shall give them out and allow free competition.

Diabetic Chocolate

Brigadier Peto: asked the Minister of Food the position with regard to the prospects of increasing the amount of diabetic chocolate which can be made available for sale by chemists and for which the demand is at present greater than the supply.

Mr. Strachey: I am afraid there is little prospect at present of obtaining additional supplies of Sorbitol, which is an essential ingredient in diabetic chocolate.

Brigadier Peto: Is the Ministry of the right hon. Gentleman or the Ministry of Health responsible for the restriction?

Mr. Strachey: I think we are responsible for the supply of ingredients.

Imported Fruit (Control)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food if he is now in a position to announce the arrangements whereby wholesalers without 1939 entitlement will be permitted to deal in citrus fruits, bananas, and other fruits at present subject to allocation or import restriction.

Mr. Strachey: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject, but hope to do so fairly soon.

Mr. Collins: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of how long it will be before we can expect that statement, because it has been under consideration for some 18 months?

Mr. Strachey: It is a question of the degree to which the supply is meeting public demand as to what extent we can free this trade. I am very anxious to do so, as my hon. Friend probably knows.

Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that under his present dispensation it is much easier for large businesses to get an allocation than a small business in a small village and will he endeavour to correct that anomaly?

Mr. Strachey: I would not agree with that contention.

Eggs

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food if he will extend the age limit, for priority allocation of eggs to children, from two years to five years.

Mr. Strachey: This will not be necessary during the flush season for eggs which is now approaching but we are considering whether it would be practicable to do it when supplies fall off again later in the year.

Mr. Collins: When my right hon. Friend considers this, will he bear in mind that children from two to five years of age benefit neither from school meals nor from school milk, and that they have only half a meat ration, so that these three years are particularly lean years for young growing children?

Mr. Strachey: I agree that this is a concession of importance which we would like to make.

MALAYA (POLICE ACTION)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what circumstances one woman was shot dead and another seriously wounded in operations in Malaya by the Perak police on 23rd February.

Mr. Creech Jones: I have seen an account of this incident in the Press. I am asking the High Commissioner for details and will write to my hon. Friend when I have received his reply.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister seen a report in the London "Times" which states that a woman was shot dead after running half a mile? Is that the report he is to investigate?

Mr. Creech Jones: I accept nothing which appears in the newspapers until I receive the report from the High Commissioner.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendment to the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No.1 (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 106.

DIVISION No. 70.]
AYES
[3.35 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Daggar, G.


Albu, A. H.
Brown, George (Belper)
Daines, P


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Byers, Frank
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Callaghan, James
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Austin, H. Lewis
Carmichael, James
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, S. S.
Champion, A. J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Ayles, W. H.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Deer, G.


Bacon, Miss A.
Cluse, W. S.
Dobbie, W.


Barton, C.
Cobb, F. A.
Dodds, N. N.


Battley, J. R.
Cocks, F. S.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Collick, P.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Benson, G.
Collindridge, F.
Dumpleton, C. W.


Berry, H.
Collins, V. J.
Dye, S.


Bing, G. H. C.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Edwards, Rt. Hon, N. (Caerphilly)


Binns, J.
Cooper, G.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Blyton, W. R.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Boardman, H.
Cove, W. G.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Bramall, E. A.
Crawley, A.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Cullen, Miss
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)




Ewart, R.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Fairhurst, F.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Farthing, W, J.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Scollan, T.


Foot, M. M.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Forman, J. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Segal, Dr. S.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lyne, A. W.
Sharp, Granville


Gallacher, W.
McAdam, W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
McEntee, V. La T.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Gibson, C. W.
Mack, J. D.
Simmons, C. J.


Gilzean, A.
MoKay, J. (Wallsend)
Skeffington, A. M.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull,N.W.)
Skinnard, F. W.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
McKinlay, A. S.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Granville, E. (Eye)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
MoLeavy, F.
Snow, J. W.


Grey, C. F.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Solley, L. J.


Grierson, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stamford, W


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Steele, T.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mainwaring, W. H.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J


Guy. W. H.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stubbs, A. E.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Hale, Leslie
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Symonds, A. L.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hardman, D. R.
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Hardy, E. A.
Middleton, Mrs. L,
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Haworth, J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Monslow, W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Moody, A. S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hicks, G.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Tiffany, S.


Hobson, C. R.
Morley, R.
Timmons, J.


Holman, P.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Titterington, M. F.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Morris Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Tolley, L.


Horabin, T. L.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Usborne, Henry


Hoy, J.
Mort, D. L.
Wadsworth, G.


Hubbard, T.
Moyle, A.
Walkden, E.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Nally, W.
Walker, G. H.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Naylor, T. E.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Neal, H. (Clayoross)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A,
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Warbey, W. N


Janner, B.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J, (Derby)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Jenkins, R. H.
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


John, W.
Parker, J
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Johnston, Douglas
Parkin, B. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Pearson, A.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Piratin, P.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Keenan, W.
Popplewell, E.
Williams D. J. (Neath)


Kenyon, C.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Williams J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Williams Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
price, M. Philips
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Kinley, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Kirby, B. V.
Pryde, D. J.
Willis, E.


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Lang, G.
Rankin, J.
Woods, G. S.


Lavers, S.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Yates, V. F.


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Reeves, J.



Lee, F. (Hulme)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Levy, B. W.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
De la Bère, R.
Herbert, Sir A. P.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Digby, S. W.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hollis, M. C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Donner, P. W.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)


Barlow, Sir J
Drayson, G. B.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Baxter, A. B.
Drewe, C.
Hurd, A.


Birch, Nigel
Eccles, D. M.
Keeling, E. H.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Langford-Holt, J


Bower, N.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Gammans, L. D.
Linstead, H. N.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Glyn, Sir R.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Butcher, H. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Low, A. R. W.


Challen, C.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
McCoroquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)







MacLeod, J.
Robinson, Roland
Touche, G C.


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Ropner, Col. L.
Turton, R. H.


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry>
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Sanderson, Sir F.
Vane, W. M. F.


Marsden, Capt. A.
Savory. Prof. D. L.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Scott, Lord W.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Marshall, S. H (Sutton)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Mellor, Sir J.
Smithers, Sir W.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Moore, Lt.-Col, Sir T
Snadden, W. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Nicholson, G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
York, C.


Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Pickthorn, K.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)



Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Teeling, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Raikes, H. V.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Mr. Studholme and


Rayner, Brig R.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport-


Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Thornton-Kemsley, C N

Orders of the Day — BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.41 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I have it in Command from His Majesty to acquaint the House that he places his prerogative and interests so far as concerns the matters dealt with by this Bill at the disposal of Parliament.
I beg to move, "That this Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of the Bill is to give the force of law to the Terms of Union agreed upon by the representatives of Canada and Newfoundland. As the Preamble shows, these Terms have been approved by the Parliament of Canada and by the Government of Newfoundland. The Canadian Parliament have submitted an Address to His Majesty praying that a Bill to confirm them may be laid before our Parliament here. The Terms of Union are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. Under these terms, Newfoundland will become a province of Canada, with representation in the Senate and the House of Commons of the Dominion, and with its own Provincial Legislature. At the date of Union, the Newfoundland Constitution, as it existed in 1933, will be revised, with two changes. First, there will be a Lieutenant-Governor instead of a Governor; and the Legislative Council, that is to say, the Upper Chamber, will disappear, unless the province otherwise decides.
Term 15 provides for the first election of the Provincial Legislature, and for the extension of the franchise to include women over 21. Under the Terms, financial measures are laid down and grants are provided by Canada to enable Newfoundland to adjust itself to the status of a province and to develop services that will give it revenue. Term 29 provides that, within eight years, a Royal Commission will review the financial position of the province, and will recommend whether further financial assistance will be required.
Clause 2 of the Bill repeals the Newfoundland Act of 1933, by which the present Commission of Government was

set up, but Section 3 of that Act is still to stand; it provides our Treasury guarantee for the existing 3 per cent. stock of Newfoundland. The guarantee, of course, continues, but, by the Terms of Union, Canada will service and amortise the Ioan. That, in the barest outline, is the Bill, and, at the risk of wearying the House with facts with which it is familiar, I shall recount the events which have led to its production.
Before I do so, may I say that it affects the future government of the oldest overseas community in the British Commonwealth. It concerns the future happiness of a people who have always been joined to us by the closest ties of history, interest and friendship; who, by racial origin, are more than 98 per cent. British; people who are bound to us by common loyalty to His Majesty the King; and who, through the centuries have stood with us in fair weather and in storm; and whose outstanding contributions to our common cause in the recent war are still burning warmly in our hearts and minds.
I know that every hon. Member desires that full justice should be done to such gallant and devoted friends, but I know that some hon. Members have some doubts about this Bill, that they regard it with apprehension, and that they view with misgiving the method by which the policy of confederation with Canada is being carried through. I have tried to give very close attention to everything which they have said and written. I have done so, I hope, with an open mind. I am left with the conviction that they have misunderstood what it is that we have done. I hope to persuade them this afternoon that that is true, and that, in consequence, our Debate will bring the House to accept the Bill by general agreement and without a single adverse vote.
I have a narrowly restricted task in this Debate. I have not to argue the merits of confederation—whether union with Canada will be good for Newfoundland, whether Canada's terms are generous or not, whether it would have been better for the Newfoundlanders if responsible government, Dominion independence, had been restored. All that was for Newfoundland and Canada to settle, and it was not for me—it is not for me today—to intervene. My task is to present to the House the agreement which Newfoundland and Canada have made, to


explain how that agreement was arrived at, to justify the action of our Government in the matter, and to ask the House to give the agreement the force of law.
I come now to an outline sketch of the events which have produced this Bill. In 1933, owing to fishing failures, the world slump and other causes, the Newfoundland Government found itself in financial difficulties of the gravest kind. Its Budget had not been balanced for 14 years; it could hardly carry on. It therefore asked the Government of the United Kingdom to give help. The Government of the United Kingdom set up a Royal Commission, which proposed that the Constitution of Newfoundland should be suspended and that the island should be governed by a Commission of six appointed members, three of them from Newfoundland, under the chairmanship of the Governor. The Legislature of Newfoundland accepted this proposal; at their request, this Parliament passed the Newfoundland Act of 1933, and the island has been governed under that Act until today.
But the war brought new prosperity to Newfoundland. In 1942, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then Secretary of State for the Dominions, visited the island, and an informal Parliamentary Goodwill Mission made a tour in the summer of 1943. They were all agreed that the future form of government must be reconsidered when the war was over. Suggestions were put forward that, if Newfoundland was self-supporting, a National Convention to consider the future form of government should be set up, a referendum was suggested and so on. When the war was over, the present Government of this country took up this suggestion and gave it concrete form. They announced in December, 1945, amid congratulations from all quarters of the House, that a National Convention would be elected in the following year, and that its mandate would be to consider the economic and financial situation of the island, and the possible forms, not a single form, of future government which might be submitted to the people in a referendum. That plan was carried out.
The Convention met in September, 1946; in May, 1947, it sent a delegation of its members to London, and it sent another delegation to Ottawa. This second delegation spent some months

negotiating with the Canadian Government on the terms on which a union with Canada might be carried through. In November of that year, the Canadian Government sent the terms which it proposed to the Convention, but in January—13 months ago—the Convention recommended to the Government that two forms of government only should be laid before the people in the referendum—first, the continuation of the Commission for a period, and, secondly, the restoration of the responsible Government which had existed in 1933.
A few weeks later, our Government here, which, of course, had final responsibility in the matter, decided that a third alternative, namely, Confederation with Canada, which the Convention had rejected, should be included in the Referendum. I shall explain our reasons for that decision in a moment. When we announced it on 2nd March, 1948, three months before the Referendum, we made it absolutely plain—and this is important —what the method for carrying through Confederation was going to be if it were accepted. In my dispatch, I said:
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom appreciate that there has been a feeling amongst some members of the Convention that the entry of Newfoundland into a Confederation with Canada should only be arranged after direct negotiations between a local responsible Government and the Canadian Government. The terms offered by the Canadian Government represent, however, the result of a long discussion with a body of Newfoundlanders who were elected to the Convention, and the issues involved appear to have been sufficiently clarified to enable the people of Newfoundland to express an opinion as to whether Union with Canada would commend itself to them.
The method proposed, therefore—and it is with the method that I know many hon. Members are now concerned—was made absolutely clear a long time before the vote was taken. Three months later, in June, 1948, these three forms of Government were submitted to the people with the following result—I am giving the figures to the nearest thousand: for the Commission 22,000; for Confederation 64,000; for Responsible Government 69,000. As no form of Government received a majority over the other two combined, a further Referendum was held on 22nd July to decide between Confederation and Responsible Government. The result was this: for Responsible Government 71,000; for Confederation 78,000.


Of the former electoral districts, 18 out of 25 voted for Confederation, seven for Responsible Government.
In the light of this result, the Canadian Government, with our agreement, proceeded to make formal arrangements for carrying union through. They invited a delegation to come to Ottawa to negotiate the final terms; they made further substantial concessions to the views and wishes of Newfoundland; they cleared up various misunderstandings which there had been at the time of the Referendum; and, at length, on 11th December, the terms were signed. Last month, the Canadian Parliament passed the necessary legislation, and now they and the Government of Newfoundland have asked that our Parliament shall do the same. If we agree, if this Bill passes, union with Canada will be effected on the last day of this month when the new financial year begins.
The practical and administrative preparations for the union are far advanced, and there must be compelling reasons if we are now to halt our legislation and to change our course. On what grounds have we been asked to do so? First, let me deal with one point which I have mentioned, and which may have troubled hon. Members. Why did the Government of the United Kingdom insert the third alternative, Confederation with Canada, in the Referendum when the National Convention had decided not to do so? I want it to be absolutely clear that it was we, this Government, and not the Commission of Government who decided on that insertion. Our reasons for doing so were published just a year ago today. What were they? The vote in the National Convention for the exclusion of confederation had been 29 to 16.
In other words, there was a strong section of the Convention strongly supported outside which wished confederation to be included. We felt that by the insertion of confederation we were in no way prejudicing the ultimate decision, but we felt that it would be wrong to refuse the wish of so large a section who desired that third alternative should be voted on. We felt that if we did exclude it, we should, in effect, be disenfranchising a large number of electors. The event has proved that we should, in fact, have disenfranchised more than half, and I

am sure that, in the light of the result of the Referendum, the House will think that we did right.
There is another point which I know has troubled some hon. Members. It is thought that the Government ought not to bring in legislation while an appeal on this very matter is before the Privy Council. Last November, six Newfoundlanders brought an action in a Newfoundland court in which they claimed that union with Canada should not, on legal grounds, be carried through. The action was dismissed by the Court of First Instance in Newfoundland, and an appeal to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland was likewise dismissed, and dismissed without the Attorney-General being asked to argue the case for the Government. A further appeal has now been made to the Privy Council, but I understand that it cannot be heard until after 31st March when, if this Bill is passed, union with Canada will take place.
I quite agree that, in the normal way, it would be undesirable to bring in legislation on a matter which is the subject of litigation in the courts. But I am advised that there may be cases where the public interest demands that Parliament should proceed, and I submit that this Bill is a case in point. Parliament, of course, must examine the circumstances of the matter and must then decide, in its supreme authority, to do what it judges to be right. What are the circumstances here? If we waited until this appeal were heard, union could not be carried through on the appointed day. Confusion would certainly result, and public interest, above all in Newfoundland, would greatly suffer. It is, therefore, undesirable to postpone the date of union, the more so since I am advised that this appeal to the Privy Council cannot really affect the issue.
Of course, it would be wholly wrong for me now to prejudge the various matters in the statement of claim, but I think I should try to show the House that I am right when I say that the result of this appeal could not possibly affect the issue. The main claims in this action may be summarised in the following way. First, we are inviting Parliament, by this Bill, to effect the union of Newfoundland with Canada by a new United Kingdom Act. This Parliament, it is said, cannot make law for Newfoundland except at


the request of an elected Legislature. Secondly, it is claimed that the acts of the Commission in Newfoundland leading to the Referendum were in law invalid.
On the first point, it is enough for me to say, what every hon. Member will agree, that the advice of the Privy Council could not affect the right of Parliament here to legislate as it thinks fit. Moreover, the Legislature of Newfoundland had never adopted the optional provisions of the Statute of Westminster. On the second main claim, namely that the acts of the Commission of Government were invalid, I will only quote the Judge of the Court of Newfoundland. He said:
The action is based on fundamental errors of law and logic which are apparent on the face of the papers, and which are fatal to it … Logically, legally and practically, it seems to me to be nonsense.
I repeat, even if the Privy Council were to advise that this judgment itself was nonsense, even if the Privy Council decided that on the existing law the Newfoundland courts were wrong and the claimants right on every point, that ought not to deter Parliament on new legislation from doing what is right for Newfoundland. We have sought, by a fair and democratic process, to ascertain the views of the people of Newfoundland; we are asking Parliament to give effect to their wishes and we think the public interest must now prevail.
Another ground of objection arises from the British North America Act of 1867. That Act provides, in Section 146, machinery by which, on an Address from the Legislatures of Newfoundland and Canada, Newfoundland may enter the Confederation. It has been argued that union can be effected only by that means. I am advised that that view is wrong. Section 146 of the British North America Act did not exclude, could not have excluded, the possibility that Newfoundland should enter Canada by other lawful means. It simply provided that incorporation might be effected by Order in Council made by the King in exercise of his prerogative on the advice of his Ministers in the United Kingdom. Of course, if that procedure had been adopted it would have avoided the need for legislation. We should not be debating this Bill today. But clearly that procedure is not applicable to the present factual situation in Newfoundland; and

the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. St. Laurent, has argued in his House of Commons that it is not appropriate to the present constitutional position of his country, because the King in respect of Canada now exercises his prerogative not on the advice of his Ministers in the United Kingdom but on the advice of his Ministers in Canada alone. Therefore, I think the British North' America Act of 1867 need not delay us any further now.
What about the Newfoundland Act of 1933—our Act by which the Commission was set up? It has been said that by that Act we made a pledge to restore self-government as it then existed when Newfoundland had overcome its trouble and was once more self-supporting. It is said that this Bill, if passed, would violate that pledge. That argument all turns on the meaning of the Extract from the Royal Commission's Report which appears in the Schedule to the Act of 1933. The first paragraph of that Extract numbered (a), reads as follows:
The existing form of Government would be suspended until such time as the Island may become self-supporting again.
If hon. Members examine that, they will see that if it stood alone there would be a strong case for saying that when the Island was self-supporting the form of Government which had existed in 1933 must be restored and that no other alternative was open. But paragraph (a) does not stand alone. The Extract continues down to, paragraph (g), which reads as follows:
It would he understood that, as soon as the Island's difficulties are overcome and the country is again self-supporting, responsible government, on request from the people of Newfoundland, would be restored.
The words "on request" are vital. The old form of Government is only to be restored if there has been a request from the people of Newfoundland. It is plain that if there is no such request something different could be done—otherwise the Commission of Government would have to go on for ever, which I submit is absurd.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there was no system by which the people could make that request and by which they could make their views known?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is why, on the original proposals of the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert)


the system for Referendum was devised, the system of the National Convention and the Referendum.

Mr. Gammans: Was not such a request for restoration of responsible Government made by the National Convention?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It was on request from the people and, of course, unless it meant "from the people" there was no sense in putting in "on request." If they intended simply to restore responsible government they would have said so. I submit that it is plain that if there is no such request something different could be done. How could the people make their request? That is the question which has so rightly been asked. As I said, it was proposed in this House as early as 1943—I think I am right—that it should be by Referendum. The present Government proposed that in December, 1945, and it was welcomed on every side.
Well, there have been two Referenda, two chances for the people of Newfoundland to request that the old form of responsible Government should be restored. On both occasions only a minority of the people answered "Yes." In other words, the people have made no request for responsible Government and, therefore, under the terms of our Act of 1933 it is not open to us to do what the hon. Gentleman the junior Burgess for Oxford University now desires.

Sir Waldron Smithers: In the first Referendum, surely if we take the second and third items there was a majority in favour of responsible Government of 5,334?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not follow that argument. The figures were 22,000 for the Commission, 64,000 for Confederation and 69,000 for Responsible Government. There was no majority.

Sir W. Smithers: I was leaving out the figures for the Commission and taking the two votes for or against Confederation.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That did not prevail. It was decided, and no one ever contested that it was right, that as there was no absolute majority of those who voted there should be a second Referendum.

Sir W. Smithers: Then you put in Confederation?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No. We put it in long before.
I pass now to another and, as I think, a more important point. Hon. Members may think—indeed the Amendment on the Order Paper shows that they do think so—that even if this Bill is right in law the methods adopted have been undemocratic. Is that really so? I am trying to face all the points which are in the minds of hon. Members. The National Convention was chosen in 1946 by popular election. It chose, on its own authority from among its members, by free election the delegates who went to Canada to discuss Confederation. They were not our nominees. The Terms of Union on which those delegates agreed with the Government of Canada were promptly published.

Sir Alan Herbert: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman, as I believe there is a slight inaccuracy in that statement? I think the delegates had no authority to negotiate. What the right hon. Gentleman has called the Terms were the proposals of Mr. Mackenzie King. I think the delegates were not allowed to negotiate.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Technically, that is perfectly correct. I apologise to the hon. Member. There was discussion about the kind of terms which would suit the delegation on the one hand and the Government of Canada on the other, and after the discussions were over the Canadian Government put up proposals which they thought were sound and just, and it was on those proposals that the vote was taken. It is said in the Amendment on the Paper that while those terms were debated in Canada for a fortnight they were not debated in Newfoundland at all.

Sir A. Herbert: They are in the Bill.

Mr. Noel-Baker: They are better, of course—better for Newfoundland. The original terms were debated in the National Convention clause by clause for several weeks, and the Debates were broadcast—every minute of them—to the people of Newfoundland who had to vote.

Sir A. Herbert: They were rejected.

Mr. Noel-Baker: There was, as I have shown, for months before the Referendum


no shadow of doubt about the method by which Confederation, if accepted, would be carried through. It was after all this preparation, after all this meticulous—I might almost say passionate—popular debate that the people of Newfoundland gave a majority for Confederation. I hope the House will endorse the view which the Government hold, that the method, like the result and like the future form of government in Newfoundland, is wholly democratic in every way.
For the reasons I have recited I hope the House will pass the Bill. If it does so, the work of the Commission of Government will shortly end. I think it would be right if I said a few words of appreciation of what it has done. it took over in 1934 when things were very bad. The Government of Newfoundland had done their best within their limited resources, and under the blows of bad fishing seasons and the world slump, to provide a good administration. Since 1934, in more favourable economic circumstances, the Commission has made good progress in many ways. Hospitals have been increased, clinics have been set up, the incidence of tuberculosis has shown a marked decline, free and compulsory education has been introduced, the fishing industry has been greatly helped—in particular by the Fisheries Board. As it ends its labours I know the House would want me to express our gratitude to the Commission and to all its members, whether from this country or from Newfoundland for what they have done.
But the Commission was only a temporary device. It was plain that it could not indefinitely endure. We have sought—it has been our only purpose—to find out what system the people of Newfoundland themselves desired to take its place. We have done so, by methods which, until quite lately, seemed to command the full approval of all hon. Members of this House; by methods which we think are right in law and which are wholly democratic. May this Bill bring added strength to Canada, and happiness, prosperity and progress to the gallant and generous people of Newfoundland.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: As I take it, and as, indeed, the Secretary

of State said in his speech, we today are in a rather unusual position. It is not our business, as it is on common occasions in this House, to express our opinion as to the merits or demerits of the proposal. Our sole task is to determine whether, in passing this Bill, we are carrying out the express will of the two peoples concerned, those of Canada and of Newfoundland. With regard to the people of Canada, there is, I think, no dispute. No suggestion has been made that any other method could have been adopted of ascertaining the popular view than that which has been adopted, and that popular view has been expressed with decision.
I wish I could say that the case with regard to the people of Newfoundland was equally clear. On an occasion such as this I wish it were possible for all to agree upon the course of action. But, of course, the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) shows that today that is not the case. I fully appreciate the motives which have led my hon. Friend and my other hon. Friends to put this Amendment on the Paper. In doing it they are not expressing just their own view. It is not their personal idiosyncracy that some other course would be best for the people of Newfoundland. They are, unfortunately, expressing what we know is the feeling of a substantial part of the people of Newfoundland. It is, indeed, unfortunate that whatever be the rights or wrongs—I propose to make my own position quite clear—this Federation, if it takes place, when it takes place, should leave behind it feelings of bitterness, which, alas, at the present moment it threatens to do.
The responsibility of His Majesty's Government over the last few years, and of the Commission of Government acting under their authority, was not to press this or that remedy, not to try to get this or that constitutional proposal adopted in Newfoundland. It was to ascertain, objectively and in a judicial fashion, the will of the people, in order that we in this House might subsequently act upon that will. What we have to do today is to inquire whether, in fact, His Majesty's Government have carried out that duty laid upon them, and how they have done it. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech went back some considerable
period of time, and he dealt very


fully with a number of arguments that have arisen over various Acts of Parliament, some dating back as far as 1867. I do not intend to go back any distance at all. I want to go back only to March of last year, because that, frankly, to me seems to be the determining factor.
If hon. Gentlemen have refreshed their memories of the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State on 15th March of last year, they will have seen set out in full the despatch sent to the Governor of Newfoundland, in which, in the clearest detail, is set out the procedure which the Government meant to adopt in order to ascertain the popular will, and which, in fact—I think nobody questions it—they subsequently did adopt. They stated quite clearly that they intended to proceed by means of a Referendum. They made it quite plain that in that Referendum was to be included the question of federation with Canada, and they made it quite clear that if, on the first Referendum, there was no over-all majority for any of the three alternatives, then the one that received the least number of votes would be dropped, and a second Referendum would be taken on the other two questions.
That is exactly the procedure which was subsequently adopted, and exactly the procedure about which certain sections of the people of Newfoundland now complain, and which has given rise to the undoubted feelings which now exist. It is only fair to point out that although these clearly defined terms were made public both in this country and in Newfoundland in March of last year—certainly over here, and I think I am right in saying in Newfoundland as well—no objections were then taken such as are now being taken to that procedure.
It fell to my lot as being connected with these affairs to consider from my own point of view, the statement of the Government, and I saw—and I can still see—nothing in their proposals that was
repugnant to justice. It was a method, and a fair method, of ascertaining the will of the people. I quite agree that another method equally fair would have been to restore the Commission Government after further elections and to have let the elected majority decide; but, as I say, there was nothing that seemed to me repugnant from the point of view of

justice, although, quite naturally, had I been in receipt of the sort of objection which at a much later date I received from people of Newfoundland, and which other hon. Members on both sides of the House received, all of us, without any party differences, anxious only to meet the will of the people of Newfoundland, would have looked at the matter again; and, no doubt, the Government would also have been prepared to do so. But the fact is that, so far as I can make out, no real complaints were raised against this method in Newfoundland until certainly after the result of the first Referendum, and I am not sure that it was not until after the result of the second Referendum.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Since we were definitely pledged to restore self-government to Newfoundland when they became solvent, which they did during the war, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the right thing to do was to restore self-government and, through that method, let them find out what they wanted to do with their future?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend rather begs the question. He assumes that we were definitely pledged to restore self-government. The right hon. Gentleman showed the qualification that existed in a subsequent Clause; but my answer to that would be that if my hon. Friend last March had put that question to me and had said, "Do you not think that even if this method is logical but unconstitutional, it is unwise, because it is not going to meet the wishes of the people of Newfoundland?" Then certainly I would have said, "Let us try together to find out which way suits them best." My difficulty is that that was not done. In fact, the method selected by the Government was allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion, and it was only then that objection was taken.
It is clear that a difficulty has arisen—and I am not saying it in any deprecating way about either side—as difficulty was likely to arise, because of the narrowness of the vote. If there had been a big majority one way or the other, then, no doubt, the successful opponents would have accepted the decision. All of us understand the feelings of people who may have very strong views on a matter which is going to affect the whole


of their future when they find that a decision adverse to them is to be implemented on a majority as small as this one.
Frankly, I put to myself the question whether at this stage it would not have been wise on the part of the Government to make assurance doubly sure—although I do not for one moment claim that there was any legal liability on them to do so—when they began to find the existence of this bitter opposition—a bitter opposition which might do great damage to the future relationship of Newfoundland and Canada and, incidentally, to the future relationship of this country and the Canada of which Newfoundland will form part—and to have restored the method of ordinary elections by district and the final decision by the population. I do not think for one moment that in not adopting that course we are entitled to blame them. They did set out quite clearly the course which they intended to adopt, and they have not deviated at all from it. I am only showing that the decisions which all of us wish could have been avoided, might possibly have been avoided by that method.
I also say that they could only have been avoided by that method. We had no assurance that in fact the opposition would really be any less from those who oppose federation if, instead of federation coming about because of a 6,000 majority on a popular vote, it came about as a result of a majority of two or three in a popularly elected assembly. I am doubtful myself whether in fact the feeling would have been much less. One cannot entirely ignore the other side. Even if by this method one had to some extent reduced the bitterness of those who oppose federation, might there not have been a very great danger of arousing bitterness if those who were in favour of federation, and who, having seen their case victorious, although by a small majority under the proposals which the Government laid down and which apparently everyone had accepted, had been suddenly faced with another challenge under a wholly new proposal. I do not claim to judge whether it might. not have been a wise thing for the Government to do; to have taken a risk and to have attempted to allay this bitterness. Certainly I say that even if His Majesty's Government may have been

unwise, in my view in this matter they certainly have not been unfair. They certainly gave every opportunity for objection to be taken to the course they proposed with complete clarity, and that objection, so far as I can see, was never taken.
Now we are faced with a wholly different situation. The terms of federation have been offered, they have been discussed and they have been agreed to, with, I think, one exception, by the representatives of Newfoundland in Ottawa. It would certainly be, in my view, a very big responsibility for this House now, in these circumstances, to reject the proposals which are made by Canada which come from Newfoundland under the circumstances with which we are all now familiar. A rejection from this House might lead to Canada withdrawing altogether from the proposal. It certainly might cause great feeling in Canada as to the extent of the interference exercised by this House of Commons with Canadian affairs against the wishes of the people of Canada.
As to the effect on Newfoundland, it would, after all, mean that this House decided to accept the view of the minority rather than of the majority. It may be very small one way or the other; but in fact there was a definite majority on one side, and if we were to reject this Bill now it would mean that we had decided that the minority view should prevail. I cannot help feeling that that might lead on the other side, in Newfoundland, to just as much bitterness and just as much resentment; and, if I may say so, much more justifiable resentment and bitterness than is now felt by the opponents of the scheme. Therefore, as far as I myself am concerned, and as far as this aspect of the case is concerned, I feel that I could not take the responsibility of objecting to this measure or of advising my hon. Friends to reject it, although I realise that there are many who feel deeply on this question, and who in a matter of this kind will naturally follow the dictates of their consciences.
Before concluding I should like to refer to what is a comparatively new element in the case, and the one which, frankly, has caused me and some of my hon. Friends much the greatest concern, and that is the new factor of the appeal to the Privy Council. I dislike a position


in which this House is legislating on a matter which is the subject of an appeal to the Privy Council. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's advice to the House—it is the same advice as has been tendered to me by other lawyers—that constitutionally, legally, there is no objection, that this House is a sovereign assembly, and from the purely constitutional point of view the fact that the appeal is pending makes no difference whatsoever to our power. But if that is the constitutional point of view, there is of course a moral point of view as well, and we cannot dismiss from our minds the position we should be in if in the exercise, and the proper exercise, of our powers we pass this Bill and then find that the appeal is allowed by the Privy Council. It would, I think, be a serious position.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Can the position arise if this Bill is passed?

Mr. Stanley: Certainly. The learned Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong, but I think it true to say that the passage of this Bill would not affect the rights of the appellant on the particular case he is bringing to the Privy Council; the case could go on irrespective of what happened to this Bill. I think we should all feel that the House would be in a very difficult position if, having passed the Bill, we then found an adverse opinion in the Judicial Committee. The right hon. Gentleman, while disclaiming any intention of prejudging the issue in the case, has not unskilfully conveyed to the House an impression that this case is unlikely to succeed. Indeed, that is my view. But can we depend upon that? Is that really quite good enough? What if we are wrong? What if even the judges in Newfoundland are wrong? The purpose of the Privy Council is to prove that judges elsewhere may sometimes be wrong.
I do beg the Government, even at this stage, to see whether there is not something that can be done to avoid the very unpleasant dilemma in which—it may only be by the one chance in a thousand—this House may be placed. Is it not possible, on the one side, in view of the grave importance of this issue, to have the hearing expedited? On the other side, would it not be possible, after explaining to Canada and Newfoundland the very real difficulty in which this House is

placed—because I do feel that it is a real difficulty—to have the operative date of the federation postponed for a limited period, which would enable the hearing to be completed?
I beg the Government to think over those suggestions. There is still time to do something about it. There are many stages in this House and in another place before the Bill, for which a Second Reading is being asked today, finally becomes law. Certainly I, myself, will today support the Second Reading, but between now and the time when this Bill passes from our control, and finally when it passes from the control of another place, I do expect the right hon. Gentleman to do everything that lies in his power to make quite certain that this House is not running a risk of being placed in a position which, hereafter, all of us would regret. Certainly my attitude to the Second Reading will be determined largely by the assurances the right hon. Gentleman can give me on that point.
I want to close by echoing the words of the right hon. Gentleman in his tribute to the Commission. They have had a very difficult time. In the early days there was, I think, a good deal of suspicion of them and of the many hardships which they had to inflict before greater hardships could be cured. They have done their duty with a single-minded regard for the welfare of the people of Newfoundland. In particular, all old Members of this House will wish well to the Governor, an old colleague of ours in this House and, what is to me an even greater testimonial of merit, a fellow Lancastrian. Whatever the result, and however these differences are resolved, it must be the earnest hope of everyone in this House that if federation goes through, it will result in the greater happiness and prosperity, not only of the people of Canada but, even more important, of those people of Newfoundland for whom we have a special responsibility and with whom we have a special tie.
It is a great regret that, after all these centuries of loyal affection between us and Newfoundland, there should be in any section of the population the regrets and suspicions with regard to this country which now exist. I do not myself believe them to be justified. Whatever may be felt about wisdom or folly, I cannot allow the suggestion that this


country has in any way behaved unfairly or with lack of justice. I hope that time will convince the people there of that, that the bitterness will die down, and that in their new relationship with us the connection may be as long and as prosperous as it has been in the past.

4.39 p.m.

Sir Alan Herbert: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add:
this House, without prejudice to the merits of the proposed union of the Dominions of Canada and Newfoundland, is not satisfied that the procedure preliminary to the introduction of this Bill has been constitutionally correct and just, is not persuaded that the will of Newfoundland has been established as clearly and unmistakably as is necessary for a surrender of sovereignty and a lasting change of status, and, observing that the terms of union have been debated in the Canadian Parliament for a fortnight but have not been debated in Newfoundland at all, declines to approve the Agreement until it has been considered and approved in the Legislature of Newfoundland and an Address presented to His Majesty in accordance with Section one hundred and forty-six of the British North America Act, 1867.
I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) on his very statesmanlike speech, with not all of which I agree. First let me say that I have the greatest sympathy with the Secretary of State, partly because Newfoundland has always presented a very difficult problem and partly because I think he has inherited a policy which he had to follow, though I have not always by any means agreed with the way in which he has followed it. I am genuinely reluctant and regretful to find myself at issue with the Government in this affair, because ever since our present Prime Minister sent me to Newfoundland in 1943 with, as he now is, Lord Ammon and Sir Derrick Gunston —and I wish he were with us—I have tried to be co-operative and helpful towards the Government in this affair.
I have very often kept quiet when I wanted to be noisy. Perhaps I was wrong—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned one example—but I thought my job on the whole was to be on the Government side. Lord Cranborne, as he then was, used to send for us and tell us what he wanted to do, and if the right hon. Gentleman had followed that procedure, things might have been a bit easier. It was only last Autumn that, satisfied at last that the Government

would consult nobody and listen to nobody, I reluctantly acceded to the request of the Newfoundland Self-Government League, which represents about half the population, to do what I could to defend their rights and liberties.
I wish, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that all this could be settled in harmony in this House and in the Parliaments of Canada and Newfoundland, but let the House observe that not even in Canada has there been complete harmony. Although there was unanimity for Confederation, Mr. Drew, Leader of the Canadian Conservative Opposition, was so much opposed to the procedure of which I complain, that he led 74 members of the Canadian House of Commons into the Opposition Lobby against the final resolution. He said that not merely had the procedure been improper, but that it had "the taste of an unholy deal." That is not the wild member for Oxford University speaking, but the Leader of the Opposition in the Canadian Parliament. Several Canadian papers agreed with me, and the "Toronto Globe and Mail" said long ago:
The procedure by which it is now proposed to unite Newfoundland with Canada, it is quite clear violates the North America Act; it violates the 1934 agreement between Britain and the Island, and it ignores or at any rate treats as of no consequence the sovereignty of Newfoundland.
That is not the wild and irresponsible Member for Oxford University, but one of the principal papers of Canada. They agree with the points which are the basis of the appeal. I know perfectly well that it is in order for the Government to charge ahead ignoring an appeal to the highest judicial authority in the Empire. I know that Parliament can do anything, but surely there are some things Parliament does not do. This appeal was the Newfoundlanders' very last hope. It was started last October. After all, the courts. do not sit very often in August and September, and they were held up in the lower courts and by lack of funds. It was quite by accident, I believe, that the appeal arrived in London at the same time as the Government introduced their Bill.
I shall not go as far as the Secretary of State in entering into the merits of this appeal, but may I give a summary of the points, prepared by learned counsel who may be engaged in the case, that will be


raised? I think that the right hon. Gentleman is belittling the effect of this appeal. I am probably no better a lawyer than he is, but, as I understand it, if this appeal were successful, then this Bill would be nonsense. They claim that it would not be binding, because these terms we are asked to approve would have been negotiated by unauthorised persons, and that therefore they do not exist. However, I am not trying to argue the matter, but
for the purposes of the record, this is the summary of the points for the appeal:

"(a) Confederation can be brought about only in accordance with a law which is binding on the people of Newfoundland.
(b) Section 146 of the British North America Act, 1867, is such a law. But Confederation is not to take place under the provisions of that Section. That is so for the reason that under that Section Confederation could come about only upon an Address from the Houses of the Legislature of Newfoundland, and no such Address can be presented while the provisions of the Old Letters Patent are suspended.
(c) Therefore it is proposed to establish Confederation under a new Imperial Act, which in effect repeals Section 146 of the 1867 Act. It provides that the Agreement 'shall have the force of law notwithstanding anything in the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946.'
(d) But the Imperial Act will not be binding on the people of Newfoundland because (a) the Imperial Parliament has no power to make a law binding the people of Newfoundland except at the request and with the consent of a Parliament of that Dominion, and there has been no request and consent of such a Parliament, alternatively (b) if the request and consent can be given by the people upon a referendum, the referendum must be held under a valid law, and the Referendum Act was invalid."

That may be complete legal nonsense, for all I know, and it may be turned down, but it is very seriously believed in by the people making this appeal. An appeal is a very expensive matter, and one does not make one to the Privy Council just for fun.They have a right to be heard.
The attitude of the Government to this appeal must have astonished many Members who heard what has been said about the people of Newfoundland having made "no request" for self-government. The phrase "at the request of" the people always struck me as very surprising, because no one in their senses would take away from Newfoundland all forms of machinery for self-expression and then

say: "You have to ask for them back again." That phrase was not in the original constitutional paragraph of the Royal Commission's report. They merely said "self-supporting." It certainly was not in the Letters Patent, and it was certainly not in the speech of Mr. Alderdice, Prime Minister of Newfoundland, because all he said was:
We trust implicitly in their honourable intentions"—
that is the honourable intentions of His Majesty's Minister—
feeling confident that a full measure of responsible government will be restored to the Island when we have again been placed upon a self-supporting basis.
I do not want to argue about that too much; but, goodness me, every time they have tried to make a request they have been thwarted. At the end of 1945 they started to circulate a petition for self-government in the island, and that is a long and difficult business in the remote parts of that rocky island. But that was knocked on the head by the announcement of the election of the Convention. But the matter did not stop there, because the Convention, by a majority vote, said that they wanted only two questions to be put to the people, responsible government or self-government. If that had gone through there is not the smallest doubt that there would have been a request, but it was thwarted by the Secretary of State because he insisted on putting in Canada. Another fact is that on the first Referendum responsible Government was on the top of the bill.
Next it has been rather forgotten that a petition was presented to his House by myself signed by 50,000 people. That was rather an astonishing thing. Anybody who knows the island will understand that to go round it—and remember it is a quarter as large again as Ireland—and collect 50,000 signatures from fishermen and foresters and farmers all over the place involves some work. When the petition was being organised, the Commission of Government refused to allow the organisers to use the radio, although two members of the Commission of Government had previously used the radio for the purposes of advocating confederation. Finally, we have this appeal to the Privy Council. After all that history and all the serious efforts that have been made in this matter, to hear


the right hon. Gentleman say that never was a request made for self-government seems to me to be the oddest thing I have ever heard from the Government Front Bench.
In regard to the Referendum, it is perfectly true that not only I but Lord Ammon, chairman of the Parliamentary Commission, recommended that there should be a Referendum, and we had two main things in mind. One was that we wanted to get the political machinery going—it had been dead for many years—and the other was that in those days there was doubt if the prosperity in the island was going to continue after the war, and the people might very well have liked the Commission of Government to continue for a period so that they could see how things would shape. If they wanted to do that, it might have been silly, though constitutionally correct, to give them a Parliament which they did not want. That was the main justification for a Referendum. But, of course, those for whom I speak think that it was wholly unconstitutional. We also thought that it would be useful as an indication of the general feeling of the people of Newfoundland.
Now we come to the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman has read out. I read it for the first time yesterday only. Nothing could be clearer and I agree with him. I did not know about it at that time. My vigilance was relaxed, I suppose. But this is one point where I wish the right hon. Gentleman had done some consulting. If he had asked me, I should have said, "Don't include Federation with Canada"; I should have said that not only is it not constitutional, but that is not the sort of thing to put before the people in a Referendum. How in the world could it possibly be said in any real sense that the Terms, as their preamble say, were "before the people"? I do not understand the half of them, and I am a distinguished Oxford man.
Quite apart from the Constitution, it is wrong to put such a question before the people as a Referendum because that is not the sort of machinery to use; and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he wanted—and perhaps he was right—to put Confederation before the people at a Referendum there were one of two things he should have done. One was to say, "We want to know what you

think, but we are not going to exclude the proper constitutional machinery. Afterwards there shall be a Parliament in which your decision could be confirmed"; or alternatively he could have said, "We must have a two-thirds majority in order to support such a vital change of status as the giving up of Newfoundland's sovereignty."

Mr. Stanley: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman did not see the Terms, and, therefore, is not in a position to express an opinion on them, but they must have been seen by the people of Newfoundland where they must have been a major document when published. Did he get any representation against them from the people of the island?

Sir A. Herbert: I cannot honestly say that I did. I heard a lot of mutterings about them and I think the best answer to that query is that they hoped they would win. But I do not think that matters. The point is what our statesmen ought to do. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had done this. I will not dwell on it any longer, because I do not want to spend too much time on all these recriminations about the past or about constitutionality, and I am quite prepared to attack this Bill on the present facts, and the face of the Bill.
Let us look at this Bill in relation to our constitutional practice. Let us first look at the Preamble. All the constitutional safeguards which our ancestors erected are not mere verbal formulae, but are designed to produce statesmanlike results. If we look at the Preamble to this Bill we see what an impossible position we get into when we avoid them. The long Title is very grand,
A Bill to confirm and give effect to Terms of Union agreed between Canada and Newfoundland.
Then it goes on:
Whereas by means of a referendum the people of Newfoundland have by a majority signified their wish to enter into confederation with Canada.
For "the people" we should read "44½per cent. of the registered electorate." I have those figures from the Secretary of State. Look at line 2 where it says:
have by a majority …
The majority was 4 per cent. of those who voted. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that that is a proper majority whereby a Dominion is to surrender its sovereignty?

Mr. George Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he thinks would be a proper majority?

Sir A. Herbert: If there is to be a majority at all it should be two-thirds. Not one comma of the American constitution can be changed unless there is a two-thirds majority, and by the wise rules of the M.C.C. even the rules of cricket cannot be altered without a two-thirds majority.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it worked well?

Sir A. Herbert: In line 8 we find that Canada has "requested and consented" to the enactment of this Bill. That is because Canada comes under the Statute of Westminster. These words do not appear in any reference to Newfoundland. The Secretary of State mentioned that the Dominion of Newfoundland has never adopted Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster. It has never had a chance, because the Act came into operation in 1931, and almost immediately afterwards Newfoundland found itself in difficulty and has never had a Government since. That is one of the points perhaps for the Privy Council, but there is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman.
Towards the end of the second paragraph we read that the agreement containing the Terms of Union
has been duly approved by the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland.
That is rather a descent after the great phrase in the long Title. The Parliament of Canada discussed these Terms, comma by comma and Clause by Clause for more than a fortnight, and at the end there was a wonderful scene, which I should have liked to see. Members rose in their places and sang "God save the King" and that fine song "O Canada." What has happened in Newfoundland? The Terms there have been approved by the Government of Newfoundland, which consists of seven people appointed by the Crown, four of whom are Englishmen. There is not even a majority of Newfoundlanders in the Government of Newfoundland, which approved of the terms by which that Dominion loses its sovereignty. Is that democracy? Is that what we understand by the traditional practices of this country and Commonwealth?
When I went to Newfoundland along with others I went into the old Parliament House. It was not even empty. It was full of civil servants. When we asked where was the Speaker's Chair we were told it was in some stable covered with dustproof wrappings. They did not even know where the stable was. These things are remembered against us in this country. They are going on being remembered. I do not want to cause trouble. The trouble is there, and I only want to put it right. Nobody realises over here the feeling there is in Newfoundland against this country. It comes out clearly in letters that are written. I do not mean letters from politicians or the sort of letter that we see in the newspapers. 1 mean letters from ordinary men and women, people who write gossipy letters to friends over here. This is one, talking about the political situation:
That all looks completely hopeless, and how people are learning to hate! It's not so much actual Confederation which hurts but it's the dirty way the Home Government have sold us.
It may be wrong but that is what they feel.
This morning in church people refused to stand for the National Anthem—elderly, steady and staid people, normally patriotic to the core. Everywhere, one hears of outport people taking down the inevitable picture of the King and Queen, and one man the other day said he had taken down his Union Tack for the last time.
One man, writing to me the other day—

Dr. Haden Guest: What church was it?

Sir A. Herbert: I do not think it matters what church he was in.

Dr. Haden Guest: I meant what church party?

Sir A. Herbert: If the hon. Gentleman has no better contribution to make to the Debate he had better let me get on. A man wrote to me, and I am not saying that these people are right. I am telling the House what has happened.

Mr. G. Thomas: Why repeat it, then?

Sir A. Herbert: This man said that our name would
stink in the nostrils of a people who are as British as the lions in Trafalgar Square.
He repeated the story of the National Anthem incidents.
I did not start the petitions and I did not lodge the appeal to the Privy Council. I say, let us do this thing in the right way. I am tired of hearing people say that we are doing the right thing in the wrong way. If we are doing it in the wrong way, it cannot be the right thing. We do not say that about a forced marriage or a rape. We do not say: "The young lady must go to bed one day. What does it matter what the arrangements are?" We take good care to be sure that she knows what she is doing, that she is willing, and that she is to be properly provided for. Of none of these things are we sure. Let us do this thing also in the right way.
Even now, let us forget all the arguments about whether the past was right or wrong, and about the constitutionalities. Let us see whether we can make sure. We still have an opportunity of saying to Newfoundland: "Here is your liberty, do with it what you will." There could be a general election in May. There cannot be such a very great hurry about the Bill. What the magic of 31st March may be nobody has yet explained, and after all, the people of Newfoundland have waited for 15 years. They would have an election in May, presumably when the snows are cleared. There will presumably be some candidates for Confederation and others, perhaps fewer, for responsible government. Suppose that the Federationists are returned. Then, with all the might, majesty and power of Parliamentary authority, Newfoundland will go over to Ottawa, and come back and approve the terms. No doubt there will then be another glorious scene, this time in the Newfoundland Parliament, with the singing of "God Save the King," "O, 'Canada," and perhaps that fine old Newfoundland song "We'll rant and we'll roar like true Newfoundlanders."
On the other hand, suppose that the Federationists do not win—I believe that the fear that that might happen is at the root of the Bill—and I should not be surprised. Then responsible government will win, and Newfoundland will show that she is capable of running herself for ever. So far as I know, her dollar situation is a damned sight better than ours. She has a secure market for her forest products and her fisheries. Labrador may become another Alaska, because it has the largest iron ore deposits in the

world waiting to be exploited, and they will be a terrific thing. Whoever runs them, Labrador will be an old age pension for Newfoundland for a very long time. That is what I suggest. For the life of me, I cannot understand why, even now, the Government cannot say that this is the best way to do the business and why they cannot do the simple, honourable and constitutional thing. However, I know that I am talking to deaf ears.
Let me now glance at the terms. According to the Preamble, the original terms were before the people in the form of a Referendum. It is impossible for any forester or fisherman, even if the effort had been made—and I do not think it was—to explain the terms to them, to get terms like this sufficiently into his head to be able to produce a sober judgment on them. The original terms may have been better or they may have been worse. Some people tell me that these are worse. First of all, Canada takes over the 1933 Loan, which is held in London and which amounts in all to about 71 million dollars. There is a sinking fund of nine million dollars on them. Canada will pay us 61 million dollars for taking over that loan. That sounds very good, but we have to reflect and to remember that the national debt in Canada amounts to 1,500 dollars per head while in Newfoundland it is only about 200 dollars per head. Newfoundland will take over for ever a debt about seven times her present national debt, in addition to the 61 million dollars which Canada is taking from England. This is the kind of thing which would be discussed very properly in a Newfoundland Parliament.
Secondly, all this talk of subsidies sounds very good. I gather that most of them represent rentals for the taxes which used to go to Newfoundland will now go to Canada. I saw a rather angry letter or leading article in a Newfoundland newspaper the other day pointing out that over the whole range of the Provinces we find that they receive 76 million dollars by way of subsidy, but that Canada takes 342 million dollars. That does not sound a very profitable transaction, the paper said, and we should know more. This again is the kind of thing which ought to be discussed in a Newfoundland Parliament.
There is the question of balanced Budgets. At the moment, and ever since


1941 the island has had a balance on her Budget. It is surprising to find that since the war it has been even better. I make the prediction that under the proposed terms Newfoundland is going to show a loss. I will tell the Minister the authority upon which I make that prediction. I have several documents, one from a politician who, some people think, is rather wild, and so I will not quote him. There is also the minority Report of a gentleman named Crosbie who was a delegate to Ottawa. He refused to sign these terms. He is a prominent business man. He said that they were "financial suicide." He said that Canada was sitting in the driver's seat and was driving a hard bargain. A document on which I rely even more, is a report from a celebrated firm of Canadian chartered accountants, who suggest that under these Terms—the original Terms which the right hon. Gentleman says have been before the people—Newfoundland will have a deficit of four million dollars every year, and up to 12 years, a loss of about 50 million dollars in all. She will have exhausted her surplus by that time.
I have had that report by these chartered accountants brought up to date by a man who is rather experienced in these matters—that is to say, in making adjustments to bring in the increased transitional grants and so on—and, to my astonishment, he comes out with a worse result. He predicts a loss of 6 million dollars a year on the Newfoundland Budget, and a total loss after 12 years of 70 million dollars. I am prepared to go half way and predict a loss of 5 million dollars. It is all very well for noble Lords in another place and for some hon. Members in this House to say that the terms are generous and favourable. How do they know? The only people who know are the Newfoundlanders. The only people who have said a good word for the terms—I have never heard a good word from the Newfoundlanders—and who have approved them, are the people who negotiated them, and they were appointed by the Newfoundland Government not half of whom are Newfoundlanders. As the man in the story said, "That seems to be a hell of a way to run a railway."

Mr. Thomas Reid: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we in

this House should consider the pros and cons of the finance and economics of the situation and what is good for Newfoundland, and that we should make a decision thereon instead of leaving it to the Government of Canada and people of Newfoundland?

Sir A. Herbert: No, I am suggesting the opposite. Newfoundland has not been allowed to discuss the terms. Where has a single comma or clause of the terms been debated in Newfoundland? I merely deprecate anybody in this House or anywhere else saying that these are the best terms in the world.
I will now say a few words on the American bases. During the war we had a curious habit of giving away other people's property. We leased important bases to America for nothing for 99 years. The Newfoundlanders did not mind that during the war, but there was a clause which stated that after the war there should be some new negotiations. Since those bases are very strong bargaining points, we may be sure that a self-governing Newfoundland would have got some material benefit from the United States in exchange. We may be sure that Canada will do so. Hardly had the Debate been finished than the Canadian Prime Minister went quite rightly to Washington to discuss these matters. There ought to be some mention of this in these Terms. I may be talking nonsense, but I think I know more about this matter than some people on the Government Front Bench.
I ask the House to remember two things. One is the speech of the Prime Minister of Newfoundland which I have already quoted:
We trust implicitly their honourable intentions.
After all the arguments and quibbles, I do not believe that our pledge has been fulfilled, although I know we have the best intentions in the world. Secondly, I would remind the House that at the present moment there is in this building a petition signed by 50,000 Newfoundlanders to this House asking for consideration. Do not let hon. Members opposite think, as I have heard people say, that the people behind this movement are all wealthy merchants of St. John's. There are not 70,000 wealthy merchants in Newfoundland; I do not suppose there are more than seven.


I wish hon. Members had seen the names on the pages of the petition; I have some pages here. There are good old English names like Tarrant, Turpin, Blake, Drake—

Professor Savory: And some good Ulster names.

Sir A. Herbert: —a Samuel Butler and a William Churchill who made his mark. There are no Vyshinskys, although there might, I dare say, be a few Stanleys. They are simple and sometimes even illiterate people—not wealthy merchants, but people who are passionately attached to the English idea, who speak words now which we have forgotten but which can be found in our dictionaries—people who look about the world and see us giving Parliaments and liberties to black, brown and yellow men, and who say "All we want is to be able to determine our own future in our own Parliament instead of being chucked across the counter in a tied-up parcel as if we did not matter and as if we had not been governing ourselves since 1855." They are people whose families have been there for 400 years, since Sir Humphrey Gilbert gathered the sailors on the same spot where they still gather on Commemoration Day around him and planted the White Ensign and sing the English songs, especially the National Anthem.
I have done my best for these people, and I can do no more, but I do say this: if the policy of this Bill prevails, I for one shall not be sorry to go out from a Parliament which can so affront a proud, British, loyal, white people, and the good name and honour of my own beloved country.

5.16 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I beg to second the Amendment.
I support the eloquent and passionate plea made by my hon. Friend the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) on behalf of a great people in a remote island who have always been loyal to this country. I have been identified in a modest way with trade in Newfoundland, and I have been in contact with Newfoundlanders who came here during the war. That island, in spite of the difficulties with which it was confronted, sent a larger proportion of fighting men to supplement our efforts

in the late war than in any other part of the British Commonwealth of nations.
The reason I feel so strongly about His Majesty's Government's treatment of Newfoundland is because it is a grave reflection that there should be a feeling of bitter rancour among half the people in that island. Newfoundlanders have made their plea to us repeatedly. I appreciate what has been said about the work of the Commission. It made a great contribution to the welfare of the people of Newfoundland; but, nevertheless, the Government have treated the people of the island extremely shabbily in not examining their request with the respect and consideration due to a people who have rendered such services to this nation. There is developing a tendency to give away bits of the British Empire here and there, and I think that tendency was just a little manifest in the hurried way in which the Government have dealt with the people of Newfoundland. I want Newfoundland to continue as part of the British Commonwealth rather than see it associated with Canada, so long as it can be a separate self-governing community.
However, I am bound to say that I was strongly impressed by the admirable speech made by the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). I do not think any of us in this House, and especially those of us who have been here for a long time, would like to be a party to any decision to make any section of any community in any part of the Commonwealth discontented, unhappy and anxious to make trouble. I was very much touched by the appeals made by the minority in correspondence which I have received, and in conversations which I have had, from people in Newfoundland, lest the minority, in view of the way they have been treated by the Government, should feel bitter and acute resentment against this country.
At the same time I have to recall the observations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol that similar circumstances may arise among the majority in favour of confederation with Canada. I hope very much that whatever the outcome of this discussion is, and no doubt the Government will get their Bill, nothing will follow to cause any unkindly feeling or bitterness between the peoples in Newfoundland. The House would never wish to be associated


with any Measure which would cause unkindly feelings among peoples in any parts of the Commonwealth. I very strongly endorse the statesmanlike observations made about this complex, difficult and embarrassing case by my right hon. Friend. I hope that this will lead to the happiness and prosperity of the people of Newfoundland in association with Canada rather than stimulate differences among interests in the community itself.
In support of what was said by the junior Burgess for Oxford University, I suggest that it might be appropriate, fitting and perhaps helpful to the future relationship between this country, Newfoundland and Canada, if the Bill were postponed until the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have had an opportunity to consider the representations made to it. This seems to be a little unwise on the part of the Government, and I suggest to the Secretary of State, who presented his case fairly and squarely in every particular, that he will be rendering a great service to our relationships throughout the Commonwealth if he will take such measures as are possible in consultation with the Attorney-General in order to postpone the passage of this Bill until the case of the petitioners to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has been heard and determined.
In dealing with such a community of patriotic people of British breed who have done so much in their limited way to uphold the traditions, character and quality of our people and the people of Newfoundland, this House must try not to make them unhappy or to prevent them having the fullest opportunity of coalescing together in friendship and harmony as a new part of the Canadian Dominion.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Parker: I support the Government and oppose the views of the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert). I plead a special interest in this matter because in the early days of this Parliament I had the honour to be Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions. One of the very few responsibilities which then came to the very under-occupied Under-Secretary was Newfoundland. I wonder what the present Under-Secretary will have to do

when the Bill is passed unless other responsibilities have since been added. During that period I acquired a considerable interest in Newfoundland which I have maintained. Last September I went to Newfoundland and spent three weeks there, about a week in St. John's and about a fortnight on the West Coast and in the central parts of the island. I visited a great many outports, loggers' camps and the paper towns, in addition to meeting people in the capital.
This was soon after the voting on the two referenda. Political interest still ran very high. I formed a number of very definite impressions. I am quite certain that the great majority of the people had thought out their views on this subject. It had been very keenly argued right the way through the country over a number of weeks and months. When the Convention met, its proceedings were broadcast; witnesses were examined, and all the issues were discussed at very great length and over a very long period. I am quite certain that the people of Newfoundland came to their decision knowing the issues and I therefore think that the final decision taken in favour of Confederation with Canada on a vote in which more than three quarters of the people participated was definitely a national decision. I take the view that if democracy means anything, it means the rule of the majority, and there was a definite majority, quite as great a majority in favour of Confederation as we had in this country in favour of the present Government at the last General Election. In the recent American Presidential elections, only 51 per cent. of the adult population over 21 voted. Political interest was far greater in Newfoundland, and the result of the voting is certainly a democratic one.

Sir A. Herbert: May I point out that governments, thank God, and even Presidents of the United States pass, but a change of constitution is lasting, and that is why a larger majority is required.

Mr. Parker: I understand that point, but the matter was fully discussed before the decision was made. It was a decision of the country as a whole as against the capital. St. John's voted two to one for Responsible Government and against Confederation with Canada. The neighbouring outports in the Avalon Peninsula also voted against confederation. However,


the rest of the island voted by a substantial majority for confederation and very definitely against the views of the people in St. John's. It was a conflict of opinion within the island. There was very strong and emphatic opinion on the West Coast, in the central parts of the island and in the outports as a whole against Responsible Government as it had existed before 1933. When the people there talk about Responsible Government they mean the kind of government which existed in the island before the Commission was set up in 1934. That kind of government was a very unsatisfactory one. Until quite modern times there was only one industry in Newfoundland, the fishing industry, and the country was ruled economically and politically by a small group of Water Street merchants. Those merchants advanced funds to the fishermen to live during the winter and to fit out their boats in the spring and were paid back in the autumn. Some of the merchants behaved well and some did not.
However, it was a very unsatisfactory economic set-up in which a small group of people had complete economic domination of the country. They also had political domination of the country. From the time that Responsible Government was introduced in 1855 until 1933, different parties existed in the country, but the ruling personnel was drawn from this small group of merchants, who fought one another on small points of detail but whose general policy was always the same. There gradually grew up a great feeling of discontent about this among the ordinary outport fishermen, and in the years before 1933 a number of attempts were made to create separate political movements, but they lacked leadership.
The form of government which existed up to 1933 had many defects. The Civil Service was based on the spoils system, and when Governments changed many of its personnel were sacked. Also, owing to earlier sectarian strife, the jobs in the Civil Service had to be filled in turn from the three religious groups, the Catholics, the Anglicans and the Free Churchmen, which were almost equal in numbers. Government administration was thus very unsatisfactory because people were appointed not on merit but because of their religious or political views. There

was a great deal of corruption in the Government.
The vote last summer was a vote against a return to that kind of government. There was a fear throughout the country areas among the loggers and fishermen that a vote for Responsible government would mean the return to power of the Water Street merchants and a return of the corruption in government that existed up to 1933. They voted for Confederation with Canada in the hope that by being part of a larger area there would be safeguards against a return of that kind of Government, so that they would be able to maintain the good standard of Civil Service recruitment which had been set up by the Commission Government, and so that they would have greater financial security and stability because they were part of a larger country.
There was also the important point that Canada has far better social services than a poor country like Newfoundland could ever hope to afford. In fact the argument which annoyed people who supported Responsible Government most was that right through the outports much was made by those who supported Confederation with Canada of the "baby bonus"; for Canada has a good system of family allowances and the people of Newfoundland have large families, so many of them voted in favour of confederation in order to have the full benefits of these social services. That is an important point because, despite the present prosperity of Newfoundland, it would never be possible in such a small country to have the generous social services of a larger country like Canada. Undoubtedly much of the vote in favour of confederation was also based on appreciation, not only of the present Canadian social services, but on possible future ones.
There were other things which influenced opinion. I think the Commission Government did a fine job of work, especially during the war years when more money was available and when they were able to develop their constructive proposals. I would like to add my appreciation to what has been said about the work done. It has meant a complete reconstruction of the educational system. New schools have appeared in practically all, the outports, education has been made compulsory, and an attempt has been made to build cottage hospitals and to


tackle that grave difficulty of T.B. which is so rampant in Newfoundland.
On the economic side also much has been done. For the first time soil surveys were made. Attempts were then made to settle with ex-Service men the few pockets of really good land found in the country in order to produce vegetables and milk. Then again there was an attempt to plan the fishing industry for the first time. Originally, the island had depended almost entirely on the sale of dried and salted cod sent to the Mediterranean and to tropical countries; an attempt was made to open up quick freezing plants all round the coast, the fresh fish being sent to American markets. More money could be obtained from the sale of such products than from selling dried fish in the older markets. The Fishery Board, which the Commission set up, controlled the location of these plants to prevent them crowding one another out. All this work has been pushed ahead in the last 15 years, and in voting for confederation the majority of the people in Newfoundland were voting for a continuance of that kind of policy.
This vote represents a change in economic and political power in the island. Nowadays the paper industry is the wealthiest; its exports are the largest in value, though it is not the largest in the number of people it employs for there are far more fishermen employed in the island than in the paper industry. However, there has been a big settlement of the West Coast, whereas in the past most of the population was concentrated around St. John's. This economic development has reflected itself very much in this vote, which illustrated the growth of opinion against the St. John's merchants and a desire to see that they do not run the country in future. There have been growing up in the last few years powerful trade unions in the island, in the Civil Service and elsewhere. They are a useful form of training for self-government, and they will be most useful in helping to see that any attempt to reintroduce the kind of corruption which existed under the old regime before 1933 will be impossible.
I only hope that, this decision having been taken, Newfoundland will go forward to a successful future as part of the Canadian Commonwealth for I

believe it to be the wish of the people as a whole. I am quite certain that the small opposition group in St. Johns, whatever one did, would never be satisfied. On the whole they represent business interests, who are terrified that they may be put out of business by becoming part of the wider Confederation of Canada. In the past Newfoundland, being a small country, has had to raise most of its revenue through indirect taxation. This has raised the cost of living to its poorer inhabitants, whereas the wealthier sections have got away without high taxation. The Commission Government raised the Income Tax, but it is still not as high as in Canada, or here. It will go up higher as the result of confederation, however, and that is one of the strongest reasons the opposition have against it. However, confederation will mean a large reduction in the cost of living because many of the tariffs will be removed, and therefore the poor fishermen and loggers will have a higher standard of living than in the past.
In conclusion, I wish Newfoundland well, and I am certain it has done the right thing in voting to go into Canada for it will be part of a great country which has a great future.

5.36 p.m.

Professor Savory: I listened with the utmost pleasure to the lucid and fair statement made by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. Evidently he was trying to give us the true facts of the case, and it was a statement of which he may well be proud. If, therefore, I am moved to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert), I do so for strong reasons. May I congratulate him on his brilliant speech? If I may strike a personal note, I would say that I rejoice that I voted for him at the last election, and I deeply regret that by action of this House this eloquent Member is being deprived of his seat.
When we look back on this ancient and historical Colony, we cannot refrain from recollecting its marvellous history. We all know that it was discovered in 1497 and that it was incorporated in the British Realm in the year 1583. It is a large area. It covers 42,000 square miles. In that connection I would refer to the decision of the Privy Council, about which nothing has been said today,


which in the year 1927 added a portion of Labrador, consisting of 110,000 square miles, making a total of roughly 150,000 square miles. To day we have a population in the island and its dependency of no fewer than 325,000, and the people are practically 100 per cent. of British stock. Here, as in private duty bound, I would pay a tribute to those noble Ulster immigrants who have done so much throughout its history to contribute to the prosperity of the island.
Unfortunately Newfoundland was severely hit by the terrible economic depression of the year 1931, so that its debt amounted to no less than 100 million dollars—an enormous sum for such a small island. It is only fair to remember in this connection that of that sum 40 million dollars was the direct result of war expenditure on our behalf in World War No. 1, and that during the second World War Newfoundland spent on war work, and on its contribution to this country, no less than 20 million dollars. As the result of this terrible economic depression and load of debt, after the General Election in June, 1932, the Prime Minister, the Hon. F. C. Allerdice, asked the British Government for financial aid. The British Government insisted that they would not give their financial aid without the acceptance of rule by a Commission.
The consequence was that the old Letters Patent of the years 1876 and 1905 were suspended by new Letters Patent dated 30th January, 1934. The Constitution of the island was suspended. A Commission was appointed which consisted, as the hon. Member the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) has said, of three English members, three Newfoundland members and the Governor, who made the fourth British member, presiding over the Commission. But when this constitutional Government was suspended, a most solemn promise was made, which has been admitted by the Secretary of State, who himself read out these very words from Clause G:
As soon as the Island's difficulties are overcome, and the country is again self-supporting, responsible Government, on request from the people of Newfoundland, would be restored.
In February, 1934, the Commission of Government took office. The war brought about an extraordinary transformation in

the finances of Newfoundland. First, there was an immense amount of employment caused by work on the American bases. Then there was the increase in the price of exported timber and fish, upon which Newfoundland so strongly depends. Finally, in 1943, Lord Cranborne, who was then Secretary of State, said in a speech in the House of Lords that Newfoundland was then, and had been since 1941, self-supporting. The iron mines of Labrador proved their worth in terms of gold. This territory, which had been added by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of 1927, proved an enormous addition to the revenue of Newfoundland. It is calculated that these iron mines will produce an annual income of between two and three million dollars. This fact alone has reversed altogether the financial situation.

Mr. Parker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the mines in Labrador have not yet been sunk? There are some on Bell Isle, off the coast of Newfoundland.

Professor Savory: I am perfectly well aware of that. I am giving the estimate of very competent engineers, who have gone into this matter and have issued their report, which I believe to be sound.
In 1945 there was a Public Petition for the restoration of Responsible Government. That Public Petition completely answers the objection made by the right hon. Gentleman that Responsible Government was to be restored only on the request of the people. The people did their utmost to make their request, as has been so strongly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University. That petition was signed all over the country and, therefore, the condition on which the British Government had so strongly insisted was fulfilled. The people themselves were demanding Responsible Government.
What happened? The British Government said that the question must be settled by a National Convention, which they set up and which began its discussions on September 11th, 1946. The Convention decided that the people should be asked to choose between two things: first, a continuation of the Commission and, second, a return to Responsible Government. The third alternative proposal—that Newfoundland should join the Canadian Confederation


—was rejected by an overwhelming majority of the Commission. The voting was 29 against 16. Here was a Convention elected by the people; they considered this question and rejected it; they would not have Confederation with Canada. Then it was that the British Government insisted upon having this issue of Confederation with Canada included in the ballot. They said that there must be a Referendum.
Why did the British Government interfere? What right had they to do so when the Convention had stated most emphatically that they did not want Confederation with Canada? There were two referenda. The first gave as the figures approximately 22,000 for the Commission, 64,000 for Confederation and 69,000 for Responsible Government; so that Responsible Government obtained on this vote not an absolute majority, but a relative majority. I want to point out to Members of this House that 177 of them were elected at the last Election on that very principle; they have obtained a plurality, but not an absolute majority of the electors. On the contrary, the majority of their electors have voted against them and, therefore, 177 Members of this representative House of Commons, which has taken it upon itself to abolish the University franchise, were elected on what is simply a minority vote.
On that principle, surely, we are entitled to accept this same relative majority in Newfoundland for Responsible Government. But, no—the British Government said it was not decisive and that they would have another Referendum to decide on the first two, to decide between Confederation and Responsible Government.

Mr. Bramall: Is it not a fact that the British Government said that before the first Referendum was held? They did not say that when the result of the first Referendum was made known.

Professor Savory: I never insinuated any such thing. I know that perfectly well. I am certain I did not say anything of the kind.
Then the second Referendum was held. It would be exactly the same situation if, after the General Election, the 177 Members who had obtained only a

minority vote were to be obliged to submit themselves, as was always the case in France, to a second ballot between the two candidates—let us say, for instance, the Liberal and the Conservative—who had obtained the largest number of votes; the minority candidate—the man with the least number of votes—would be eliminated and there would be a second ballot. This is the system which the British Government imposed upon Newfoundland, and there was a second Referendum.
The voting resulted in these figures: 78,323 for Confederation with Canada, 71,334 for Responsible Government. The majority for Confederation, therefore, was roughly only 7,000 votes. In fact, the proportion in favour of Confederation was only 52 per cent. of the total votes cast, and was only 43 per cent. of the total number of registered voters. What does this amount to? Not being very mathematical myself, I had these figures checked by my wife, who came to the careful calculation that of the total number of people who voted there was a majority of only 4·6 per cent. in favour of Confederation. Are we to insist that a vast constitutional change should be carried through by such a small majority as that? Someone said just now that in order to make an alteration in the American Constitution there has to be a two-thirds majority. But the hon. Member understated the case. When they abolished Prohibition in the United States by a constitutional Amendment, they had to have a three-fourths majority in both Houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate, and a three-fourths majority of all the States constituting the American union. Under these circumstances I feel that this House cannot force the Bill through with justice. It is a majority of 4·6 in favour of depriving our oldest Colony of its Dominion Government. Surely there should be a greater majority than that.
If the Statute of Westminster had been implemented this would not have been done, because under the Statute of Westminster Newfoundland would have been a full Dominion and without the assent of both Houses of her Parliament this could not have been carried through. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University has told the House that today there is an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. By this


legislation are we to render that appeal altogether ineffective, because we state in the Measure:
Notwithstanding anything in the British North America Acts, 1867 …
I have looked at that Act and I see that in order to enable the Dominion of Newfoundland to become part of the Confederation of Canada there must be an Address to Her Majesty—now His Majesty—from both Houses of Parliament. To frustrate and make ineffective this appeal to the Privy Council is doing something which I contend is altogether unjust.
There is an analogy. In this House, when we ratified the Treaty of 1921 with the Irish Free State, we insisted on the right of appeal to His Majesty in Council. When the Lough Erne decision was given by the Irish Courts under which gentlemen were deprived of fishery rights amounting in value to more than £6,000 a year, it was stated that this was done under the Brehon law in accordance with which all tidal fisheries were public property. When the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council gave permission to Messrs. Moore Bros. to appeal to it, the Irish Free State passed retrospective legislation depriving citizens of the Irish Free State of their right of appeal to His Majesty's Privy Council. That is an action which today rankles throughout Ireland, an act of injustice which is regarded as intolerable. Are we to permit the same blunder and by our act today to make impossible, to make ineffective, and to make vain the appeal these people have signed to His Majesty in Council? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University said, 50,000 of them have signed the petition. Claims have been put forward and the appeal has been made to the Privy Council.
This House is accustomed to be guided by fair play. I appeal to the House not to give a Second Reading to this Bill today and thereby make the appeal altogether ineffective. I appeal on behalf of this very ancient Colony. I would remind the House that Earl Haig said that the Newfoundland soldiers were
Better than the best in the great conflict of 1914–18.
I would remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) made a special appeal for the Newfoundland sailors with a

glowing commendation of their qualities. All these petitioners ask, and all they are appealing to the Privy Council for, is that they should be masters in their own house and that the solemn pledge given by the Government in 1933 should not be regarded as just another "scrap of paper."

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Reid: The Secretary of State has stated his case and met all the legal objections raised to the procedure he proposes. He has done that on good legal advice, and the matter has been thoroughly investigated, and I do not think there is any legal objection to the course proposed. So I do not propose to go over that ground again. The right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) stated that possibly it might have been better if the wishes of the people of Newfoundland had been taken by means of a Parliamentary decision. I suggest that when it is proposed completely to change the constitution of a country, the Referendum is the best way to do so. The Referendum procedure has been followed in this case. Certain objections have been taken to the way in which the Referendum has been carried out, but I suggest that the Referendum procedure all along had the tacit consent of the people of Newfoundland. No objections were raised to the procedure until the results came out and then a minority began to give trouble because they were dissatisfied with the results. I suggest that we cannot pander to a minority who tacitly agreed to the whole procedure until the results came out.
The junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) raised the point that the consent of the Government of Newfoundland was given by a Commission Government of seven people. That is true, but it was and is the legal Government of Newfoundland, and the consent of the Government of Newfoundland was only ratifying the result of the Referendum. Therefore, it was a perfectly moral, legal and just decision of the Government of Newfoundland just as the decision of the Government of Canada was also perfectly legal, just and moral. The junior Burgess for Oxford University made a lot of mere propaganda points which were raised by this minority objecting to confederation. He mentioned, for instance, the debt per head in


Newfoundland, which is far smaller than it is in Canada, and therefore he assumed that it was objectionable for Newfoundland to enter a country with a greater debt per head. If we take some of our poverty-stricken Colonies we find that the debt per head there is a mere fraction of the debt per head in this country, but that is not a reason why they should not benefit enormously by association with this country.
I wish to urge one point very strongly. If it is proposed to reject this Bill, we are raising formidable constitutional issues. The Government of Newfoundland legally and morally and the Government of Canada legally and morally have asked this House to implement a decision arrived at by themselves about their countries and if this House by any chance rejected the Bill it would raise formidable questions with the Government of Canada and even with the people of Newfoundland. In my opinion, this House cannot on constitutional grounds refuse to pass this Bill. Furthermore, I would suggest to hon. Members opposite who take a different view that they should not press this to a Division, because constitutionally it will look bad if it is made apparent to people in the Dominions that proposals for legislation affecting them alone, which they have to put up to this House, are subject to Divisions in this House. In my opinion we are bound to accept what the Government of Canada have asked us to do and what the Government and people of Newfoundland have agreed to do, and it would be absolutely wrong even to have a Division on this Bill tonight.
Labrador, which has been mentioned, has enormous wealth, and it is an enormous country. I suggest to the people of Newfoundland who may hear my words that Labrador cannot possibly be developed by the people of Newfoundland. Enormous capital is required for that. Only the great Dominion of Canada, working with Newfoundland as one of its Provinces, can do it.
I agree with the remark about the heroism of the Newfoundlanders. During their intimate association with our Navy they have done splendid service. They are a magnificent people who have been poverty stricken for generations. When the Commission took over the island it

was in a deplorable state, partly because the islanders had put practically all their eggs in one basket—the fishery industry—and partly due to the fact that they had had for a long time corrupt and incompetent Governments. The decision of the people of Newfoundland to ask for this legislation today is largely because their vote was an adverse vote against those people in Newfoundland who had governed them so badly. I hope that the House will, without a Division, give its support to this Bill.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: All Members in every part of the House will agree with the tribute which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State paid to the oldest British Dominion, and with the tribute he paid to the Commission and the Governor of Newfoundland. I was especially interested in the form of the tribute paid by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). He singled out the Governor as being a fellow Lancastrian and a former Member of this House. Although the Governor bears a Scots name, I am proud that he is a Welshman, and so I share in the tribute on that ground.
Although the issue was fairly stated by the Secretary of State, as one would have expected, it is really in form a narrow issue. This House is not called upon to decide whether it is desirable or not that Newfoundland should become part of Canada, or whether it would be more prosperous by doing so or not. What is in issue is the good faith of this House itself and the undertakings which were given when the Government of Newfoundland was superseded in 1933. It was superseded because it had got into difficulties. It was a Government of Dominion status and would have become one of complete Dominion status if it had implemented the Statute of Westminster. Therefore, when it got into financial difficulties, a Commission was appointed to take over the whole of the Government.
In citing the terms of that Commission, and the Letters Patent, which were altered in 1934, the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that Responsible Government was to be restored immediately the Dominion of Newfoundland regained financial solvency. He then pointed to


Clause G, which is not inconsistent with that, but apparently he thinks it is. The alternative to Clause G was to be a request by the people of Newfoundland. That request, he pointed out, has never been made. The petition now lodged, if one takes the vote of the first Referendum, shows that a majority of 69,000 voted for the return of Responsible Government. I am not really interested in those figures, but I am interested in how they were arrived at. The Convention rejected by a majority of 29 to 16 the placing of Confederation upon the ballot paper. Why did they reject it? Because they placed a different interpretation on the responsibility of His Majesty's Government under the Letters Patent of 1934.
The fact is that His Majesty's Government have not taken the responsibility placed upon them by the alteration of that status of the Dominion in 1933, as seriously, as they should have done. It has been made a matter of complaint today that no protest has previously been made in this House or in Newfoundland against the change. It might equally be made a matter of protest that the Government have not regarded their responsibilities as of importance. They are putting the law aside to suit the present convenience. A Question was put to the Prime Minister by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) in November last, asking whether the matter had been referred to the Conference of Dominion Prime Ministers. The answer given by the Prime Minister was that it had not been on the agenda, that it had not been referred to them, that it was not a matter which concerned the other Dominions; it was a narrow matter which concerned Newfoundland, and was not of general interest.
I cannot think of a matter of greater general importance than the observance of a law and of a solemn undertaking entered into in 1933. It may be desirable that Newfoundland should join Canada. Whether that is so or not, and whether the vote is conclusive or not, what is of real importance in this matter is that we should observe the form to which we agreed in 1933, namely, that a responsible legislature should first be restored in Newfoundland and that that Legislature should be allowed to make the decision. That is what I mean by observance of the law. That was an important general

principle which should have been left for discussion by the Dominion Premiers.
It is most unfortunate that the law should be lightly set aside, especially in these days. The other Dominions cannot lightly regard the using of totally different means to solve a difficulty without carrying out the strict provisions of 1933. They cannot lightly regard the turning aside from those provisions. That is a matter of concern first and foremost to this country, because we gave the undertaking. It is also a matter of concern to every other Dominion and to every other Colony that the law, once passed, and once an undertaking has been given, should be honoured.
I regret that it has been found necessary to bring this Bill before the House at this time. It could very well have been delayed until the decision of the Privy Council had been obtained. Whether or not that decision is in favour of the course that has been followed is a secondary matter. What is important to this House is that once a law has been passed, that law shall be observed by this House.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) is not here, because in the course of his speech he made a remark which I was surprised to hear fall from his lips. He said "You cannot pander to minorities." That may be so, but, surely, minorities have a right to have their voices heard; especially in a matter of this kind. We are not talking about a Town and Country Planning Bill or a Waterworks (Scotland) Bill. We are here dealing with something which is fundamental, about which people feel with their hearts. We are dealing with the whole question of loyalty and status, and loyalty cannot be bartered away. No material advantage can be substituted for love of country. Loyalty cannot be measured in terms of so many pieces of silver or, as the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) suggested improved maternity benefits. This Bill not only deals with something fundamental but with something which is irrevocable.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Dagenham is in his place because I wish to make a reference to his speech, especially in view of the position which he held in the Government when these negotiations were proceeding. I thought it was


a pity that he had to support his argument by dragging in the Water Street merchants. One curious feature of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they still share the belief of the Middle Ages in demonology. They have to personify in a personal devil anyone or any cause with which they disagree. He asks us to believe that these merchants of Water Street have such enormous power and influence that 70,000 people rush along to support their cause when that cause is fundamentally against the interests of those people. One may be able to put forward some sorts of stunts and get away with it, but I think that is straining our credulity a little too far.
By bringing forward this Bill the Government have landed the House in an absolutely impossible and most unenviable position. If we support the Bill we are laying ourselves open to a charge of offending, and mortally offending, nearly 50 per cent. of the people of this loyal and ancient Colony. If we oppose the Bill, we appear to be unfriendly, not only to the remainder of the people of Newfoundland, but also to Canada as well. With it all, we have the assurance that if this matter goes to the Privy Council and is thrown out, we shall be passing a Bill which may have some legal validity, but would certainly have no moral validity. I do not think that the Government should have landed this House in this most unenviable and quite impossible position. I do not propose to vote against the Bill, but I cannot support it with the whole-hearted approval with which I, and most other hon. Members of this House, would like to support a Bill of this sort, affecting as it does, the welfare of two constituent parts of the British Commonwealth.
This is the sort of Bill which should go through this House unanimously, and without any misgiving. I am sure that the end in view is desirable and probably inevitable. But could not this have been done more cleverly and more tactfully? As it is, the Bill will leave a very nasty taste behind it, because our good faith and our good word will be impugned by a large section of the people of Newfoundland and that is something which no section of this House can regard with equanimity.
We all realise what is the fundamental problem of Newfoundland.

It cannot stand upon its own feet, it must come into some sort of federation with some other country. There are only three countries from which to choose, the United States, the United Kingdom or Canada. The first would mean leaving the Commonwealth, and Newfoundland does not want that. I believe there was a time when Newfoundland might have desired to become part of the United Kingdom, with some sort of status rather like that of Northern Ireland. That would have had many advantages, both to Newfoundland and to this country, but it is too late now to argue about that.
The union with Canada is desirable and inevitable. To my mind the terms which Canada is offering are generous, as one would expect them to be. In the long run I consider that the union will lead to great benefits, with a rising standard of living and capital development which the people of Newfoundland would not be able to afford on their own. Further, the people of Newfoundland will participate in a larger world both politically and economically. Generations to come will be grateful for the attitude which has been taken. But what a thousand pities it is, that it has to be like this. Instead of this being a day of rejoicing, a substantial majority in Newfoundland regard it as a day of mourning. They will not become citizens of Canada joyfully, but in a spirit of sullen resignation, thinking all the time that there is an element of trickery about it.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman would deny that. I admit that he has all the legal arguments on his side, but he has not a single humanist argument to back up his case. In matters of loyalty and status it is not to the head to which one has to appeal, it is to the heart. A great deal of damage has been done by His Majesty's Ministers in this Parliament under-estimating the forces of patriotism and racial and religious feelings. What so often matters is not what is done, but the way in which it is done. It is not enough just to appeal to materialism and self-interest. Human beings are not just stomachs on two legs; they have hearts, too, as well as heads.
What are the grievances of Newfoundland or of a substantial minority in Newfoundland? Their grievances have been set out by almost every hon. Member who


has spoken. First, by a bare majority, the difference between 52 per cent. and 48 per cent., their whole future is to be changed. The second grievance is that members of the Commission Government adopted a most un-neutral attitude in this matter and went round stumping the country. The third grievance is that a responsible Government should have been restored before the issue was decided. I know that the right hon. Gentleman says that he is not constitutionally bound to do that. Maybe he is not, but he has not given us any convincing reason why it was not done. He has not dealt with the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) that surely even now other steps could have been taken to see that no legitimate grievance remained, and that everything possible had been done.
The right hon. Gentleman must know, in his capacity as a Member of Parliament, how very often a constituent who has been nursing a grievance for a long time brings it to his Member of Parliament. Although the Member of Parliament may fail to get for him what he thinks he ought to have, the mere fact that that last thing has been done, probably satisfies the constituent, and satisfies him for ever. Why was not that done? It is no use trying to back out of this business by talking about the magic date of 31st March. What does a few months matter? That is the main reason for the dissatisfaction. That is why 50,000 people in Newfoundland have petitioned this House. That is why we hear of men who fought by our side in the recent war who have vowed that never again as long as they live, will they salute the Union Jack. That is why there is bitterness and no joy in Newfoundland.
What ought we to do? Quite frankly, I find it difficult to make up my mind. As I said, I think the Government have landed us in an impossible position. If we approve the Bill we are approving something which has been done in the wrong way, and which a lot of people consider has an element of trickery about it. If we oppose it, we are equally open to the charge that we are not thinking of the real interests of the Colony or of the Commonwealth. I shall not vote against the Bill, but I adopt that attitude with the utmost misgiving. Somehow or other we must endeavour to convey to the

people of Newfoundland what is in the hearts of many of us tonight.
If my words were being listened to by the people of Newfoundland I would say to them, "You have made your protest. There are many of us who feel that the right thing may have been done, but it has certainly been done in the wrong way. But do not let your anger do harm to your country or to the Canada of which you are about to become part. After all, your loyalty to the Crown remains unchanged; your autonomy in Newfoundland is not changed. Your future will probably be better than it has ever been before. Your are now to become part of a great country, a country with an immense future, where the great qualities which you will bring to the future of that country will be recognised by its generous people."

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Bramall: I found it somewhat difficult to know on which side the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) was speaking. I find none of the difficulties which he found in knowing whether or not to support the Bill before the House. The question which appeared to be exercising him all the time during his speech was why was this thing—which I think in the last analysis he admitted was right—done in this way? I submit that it was done in exactly the right way for the following reason. His Majesty's Government clearly laid down the manner in which this constitutional question was to be decided. They have stuck to that method throughout, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) emphasised. The mistake which His Majesty's Government might easily have made, and which even at this eleventh hour they are being tempted to make, would have been to alter the rules half way through the game. It would have been a fatal and terrible mistake if at any time after there was some suspicion of the way in which the people of Newfoundland were going to decide their fate, His Majesty's Government had said that in view of the way in which the question was to be decided, they would alter the method by which the decision was to be taken.
We all know that the constitutional question of how the voice of any people shall express itself through democratic mechanism is one which can never be


answered other than imperfectly. Since the days of the Greek city states there have been no perfect democracies. Any form of democratic machinery can only be an approximation to the expression of the will of the people. It appears to me that in the machinery that was laid down by His Majesty's Government as the method for deciding this problem, they came as near as possible to laying down a machinery which should be fully democratic in the sense of expressing the will of the people of Newfoundland. They laid it down clearly and they have followed it consistently.
A method which prescribed a Referendum—that is to say, a direct appeal to the people—was laid down. I should have thought that in any society small enough to make that possible, that would be more democratic than an appeal through delegates or representatives. It was determined that there should be two Referenda so that there should be no question of a decision which was not by a majority vote. It has been submitted, as what I think can only be called a debating point by hon. Members who oppose this Bill, that because we have the system of plurality voting in electing Members to this House, we should disregard the vote on the second Referendum and transfer our attention to the result of the first, which gave a plurality for Responsible Government and rejected Confederation. I do not think this would be the appropriate time or place to discuss whether or not the method by which Members of this House are elected is the perfect method; but surely that is a supremely irrelevant consideration when we are deciding whether or not the people of Newfoundland decided that they wanted one form of Government or another.
However hon. Members may play with the figures of the two Referenda, I cannot see that they can arrive at any result other than the result that, rightly or wrongly, the people of Newfoundland reached that they wanted Confederation with Canada. The trouble with which we are confronted—the difficult position in which we find ourselves today—arises because this is a problem which caused very considerable feeling in Newfoundland and because there is a group of people who are irreconcilably opposed to Confederation with Canada for reasons

which the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) mentioned. However this result had been arrived at, if in the last analysis it had been a decision for Confederation with Canada, I believe that these people would have opposed it just as violently as they are opposing it today. His Majesty's Government are being asked to avoid the ill-feeling which will be caused, by setting aside the decision of the majority and accepting instead the decision of the minority. I believe that is the only way in which His Majesty's Government could allay this particular agitation.
There appear to be three really serious grounds on which this decision is opposed. The legal arguments were completely dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. I got the impression when the arguments were repeated by opponents of this Bill that they appeared not to have heard the considerations put forward by my right hon. Friend. There appear to be three grounds of some substance. The first is that there was a pledge to restore self-government and that any action taken subsequently was invalidated because that pledge in the Act of 1934 was not carried out. The junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) admitted that he envisaged a situation where self-government should not be restored even though the country was solvent once again.

Sir A. Herbert: Only in case, for a short period, they might continue Commission Government until they settled down. I said nothing about Canada at all.

Mr. Bramall: I appreciate that. Once it has been admitted that that pledge was not absolute, that the attainment of solvency did not ipso facto bring with it the right to the restoration of self-government, it seems to me that the hon. Member has given away his case on that point. He has admitted that it was free to the people of Newfoundland to choose to be governed in some other way. Once it is admitted that there was one other choice which they could make, why should there not be other choices as well? On what grounds should we say that they must only have the choice between the restoration of self-government and the rather artificial form of Commission Government?
The second point is that after the Convention had decided that the people should be given only two alternatives, that of self-government or the continuation of Commission Government, His Majesty's Government stepped in and proposed that the third possibility of Confederation with Canada should be placed before the people. There again, there can be no argument for saying that that possibility should be excluded automatically. To say that the Convention had the right by a majority to exclude that possibility, is to reduce the subsequent Referendum to a farce. To say that, is to say that the Convention had the right to decide before the Referendum was ever held the choice that should be placed before the people. In that case, why should they not have decided that only one choice should be put before the people? If the Referendum was to be held, surely all serious points of view should be put before the people. In fact, the position as we find it was that the Convention was proposing to exclude from the Referendum the choice which, in the last analysis, proved to be the one which the majority of the people of Newfoundland favoured.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: It may well be that that choice could have been left to the people, but the only proper method of leaving it to the people was not by the Convention but through a restored Legislature.

Mr. Bramall: Whether it was a Convention or a Legislature, it was, in effect, saying to the people "You will choose representatives, but we will then bind you only to have a limited choice." It seems to me that it cannot possibly be argued that that is more democratic than the method which was chosen by His Majesty's Government, which was to say that there were three serious points of view, in favour of which there were blocks of opinion in the Colony, and that all should be placed before the people. I cannot see how anyone can say that there was anything improper in the Government taking up that standpoint.
The hon. Member for Queen's University, Belfast (Professor Savory), asked what right the Government had to add this third choice. If there is any question as to this right, then the result of the plebiscite provides the answer. It was not only a right, but it was our duty

to see that the people were not excluded from expressing an opinion, which no doubt His Majesty's Government knew was an opinion which was very strongly held, and which indeed, as the result shows, was held by the majority of those people who were interested enough to go to the poll on this question.
The third objection appears to be that the majority is small, and that there was not a majority at the first Referendum. I cannot see that, however small the majority was, one should say that, because the majority was small, it is an argument for rejecting the view of the majority and adopting instead the view of the minority. Therefore, it seems to me that the argument of the smallness of the majority falls to the ground.
I repeat that the method chosen was a thoroughly democratic one. That seems to me to be the only question with which we should concern ourselves. because as has already been pointed out by the right hon. Member for West Bristol, we are treading here on extremely delicate ground. We are in an extraordinary constitutional position in this matter. Here we have a sovereign independent nation in the Dominion of Canada, and yet, by one of those strange historical anomalies which exist in the British Commonwealth, the Constitution of that sovereign independent nation is embodied in an Act of Parliament of another nation, and we are left in a position of trustee for that Constitution, fulfilling the function of making such necessary constitutional amendments as we are requested to make by the Parliament of Canada. Quite clearly, it is a duty which we have to exercise with very great circumspection, and I cannot see that, if we were to reject this Bill, any other construction could be placed on our action than that we were taking action in disregard of the wishes of the Parliament of Canada, and an action hostile to their sovereignty and independence.
We have to take every care of the interests of the people of Newfoundland as well, but I believe that the proper course was taken in that regard when the Government laid down a method for deciding this question, so far as the people of Newfoundland are concerned, which was fair and democratic and which the Government have consistently followed.


Having done that, I believe we can have no other duty than to accept the decision reached, on the one side, by that method, and, on the other side, by a sovereign member of the British Commonwealth, and I believe it would be an extremely dangerous action if, as a result of pressure brought to bear by the minority in Newfoundland, we were to reject this Bill.

6.34 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: The hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) obviously misses the whole point of our opposition to this Bill. We believe that a fundamental, constitutional decision of this grave nature should and could only be taken by the Parliament of Newfoundland, and that is the whole point of our opposition, except, of course, also that this Bill is untimely.
I must confess that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations made a most persuasive attempt to justify the untimely act of this Government, and I also think that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) gave very wise and helpful guidance to the House. The only point that I must make in regard to both those speeches is that I do not agree with either. I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) on bringing this matter before the attention of the House. I thought his speech was most cogent and convincing, and I earnestly trust that, while we may not feel it proper to take the House to a Division on this issue, the arguments that have been used by my hon. Friend and others will travel far away, both to Canada and Newfoundland, and possibly give some comfort to those unhappy people who are in a very distressed mood tonight.
I suppose that it is probably too late to alter the course of events. Indeed, it is quite possible that Newfoundland will be better off, and, certainly, she will be more secure against future vicissitudes under the wing of Canada. But it is not too late to defend the principles of justice and constitutional ethics. There is something odd about this whole business. When self-government was suspended in 1934, we who were in this House at that time agreed with that Measure but only

because we were given an assurance that self-government would be returned to our oldest Dominion when she was again self-supporting and when the people there asked for it. That was confirmed by the present Prime Minister in December, 1945.
By June, 1948, both those conditions, to which the Minister and every other speaker has referred, had been fulfilled. Newfoundland was self-supporting and had asked for self-government to be returned to her, by a majority, as we know, of 6,000 votes. Then came this odd business. Our promises were not fulfilled, but a promise that we had never given was thereupon placed upon the people of Newfoundland, and that was the second Referendum. At that Referendum, the idea of the Commission Government was dropped, and so Confederation secured the small margin of 52 per cent. out of a total poll of 84 per cent. The Commission Government votes were split into almost two equal sections, one half going to Confederation with Canada and half to the self-government idea. It is interesting to note that practically 50 per cent. of those votes went either way.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: No. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants the exact figures, they were these. The vote for responsible government went up from 68,000 to 71,000, taking the figures to the nearest thousand, and the vote for confederation went up from 64,000 to 78,000.

Sir T. Moore: Yes, that is right, and so there was a slight balance in favour of confederation, but it was certainly rather a half-hearted and uncertain decision on which to take a great constitutional step, and one which I think offends every sense of justice and tradition in this House.
A friend of mine who came to see me in the Lobby here, who had served in Newfoundland during the war and has just been there again, told me that there was a genuine feeling out there that there was some sort of racket going on. Of course, I cannot say anything about that, and I should be disinclined to agree with him, but I think there is far more explanation needed as to why this step was taken at this time, than has been given so far. Not only does the whole future of the people of Newfoundland depend on our


judgment today, but also that of the Dependencies of Newfoundland. The honour and good name of Britain and the British Empire are also at stake. My views are borne out by the 15-day Debate which took place over this matter in the Canadian Parliament.
Why all this haste, especially while the appeal to the Privy Council is pending? That question has been asked before. Why not observe the proper constitutional methods? What possible argument can there be against establishing a Parliament of Newfoundland and then taking the people's constitutional expression of opinion? I believe that if we did that, we should lose the resentment that now exists in Newfoundland, because we should preserve the traditional and constitutional methods of obtaining the majority view of the people. Look at what people put up with in this country from a constitutionally appointed Government. Even though they hate many of the things they do, they accept them because the Government have been elected by the majority. I am certain that would be the position in Newfoundland. Referenda—I suppose that is the correct term to apply to two of them—are not held in great esteem in this country. The nearest approach we had to one in my lifetime was when the peace ballot was held before the war. That did not do us much good, except that, perhaps, it returned the former hon. Member for West Fulham, now the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Wilmot) on a somewhat "dud prospectus."
The second Referendum in Newfoundland did not imply any great enthusiasm for the union with Canada. I make no criticism whatsoever of Canada; it may be that it will be all for Newfoundland's good to come under the wing of Canada. But that is not the issue; the issue is purely a constitutional one—to preserve the rights and freedom of the people of Newfoundland. What I criticise most strongly is the attitude and action of our own Government. One ponders these things, and one tries to seek an explanation because one assumes that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are honourable and wish to do the right thing by this oldest Dominion of ours. One seeks the reason for this, in our judgment, untimely and wrong action. Is it possible that the Government were unwilling to bear the

possible cost of any future association with the Dominion of Newfoundland? Has so much money been poured down the nationalisation drain that the Government have none left with which to maintain our traditional association with Newfoundland?
There is another point which has been mentioned twice already. Every mining engineer who knows Newfoundland knows that the coastal areas of Labrador are wealthy beyond words, in many rich and important ores. Surely, at some time or other, we could have shown our interest and our sympathy with our old friends in Newfoundland by finding money with which to develop that coastal area of Labrador? That would have prevented any possibility of this Bill ever coming before us. I suppose it is too late now, but it will be one of the tragic events in the memory of all British people who fought along with Newfoundlanders in the war that we did not take the opportunity to help them out of their difficulties. I wonder what Sir Gordon Macdonald said about this. He was an old colleague of ours, and a much respected one. Has he been consulted, and has he agreed to this abdication of our responsibilities? I should be very surprised if the Under-Secretary of State can say that he has. As was said earlier in the Debate, these people have fought alongside us in two world wars. Now we are discarding them as we discarded Burma. They are looking to us to protect their interests. We are proposing to take from them the sovereignty that they have possessed for many years. In their opinion, we have struck a blow at their nationhood, at their love of country, which is something that means so much to every one of us.
I do not wish to bring any party bias into this, but one cannot forget that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made some remarks in 1936 about liquidating the British Empire.

Mr. G. Thomas: They are staying in the Empire.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) is surely not suggesting that Confederation with Canada means going out of the Empire?

Sir T. Moore: Not at all, but to deprive a nation of its nationhood, is something


no Government can do with justice, and certainly not as long as there are nearly 50 per cent. of the electorate of that nation hostile to such an action. I protest against this infringement of our Imperial Constitution, I protest against the breaking of solemn promises, and I protest against the ignoble treatment of those who trusted us, and who, it would now seem, trusted us in vain.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Benn Levy: I was one of those—and there may be several—who came into this Debate this afternoon with no hard-and-fast preconceived ideas about the rights and the wrongs of the issue. Indeed, my only predisposition was that I had read the Amendment on the Order Paper and found it, I confess, very persuasively worded. But, having listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, I am bound to say that half the force of that Amendment immediately evaporated, and, having listened to the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), the rest of it evaporated. When the hon. Gentleman the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert), who I am sorry is not in his place, spoke, I cannot pretend that his speech completely succeeded in restoring the first predisposition that I had in favour of this Amendment, although I was very sensible of the sincerity of his speech, and, indeed, in many passages, of its moving quality.
What have been the main arguments in favour of the Amendment up till now? The foremost argument has centred on the so-called solemn pledge of 1933. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend pointed out that this solemn pledge was conditioned by the all-important phrase "on the request of the people of Newfoundland." I should have thought that barely needed the emphasis which he gave it, because if it had not been a condition of the pledge we should have been pledged not to grant but to impose self-government, to impose responsible Government, on the people of Newfoundland whether they had wanted it or not, and I am quite certain that none of us here, nor the Newfoundlanders, would have consented at the time to that kind of a blank cheque. Indeed the hon. and

learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) seemed unwittingly to commit himself to that point of view because he argued, particularly in an interruption, that there was no necessity to wait to give the people of Newfoundland the three alternatives but that they should have been given, straight away, responsible self-government. If they were to be given no alternatives, that means to say that the hon. and learned Member was in favour of forcibly imposing responsible Government, whether the people of Newfoundland wanted it or not.
The next argument was that, although it was generally agreed that the phrase "on request" was essential, that request had in fact been made. The Junior Burgess for Oxford University and the hon. Member for Queen's University, Belfast (Professor Savory) both made the point that a petition of 40,000 or 50,000 signatures had been circulated and that this constituted a request, but both hon. Members had themselves emphasised the vital basic importance of this constitutional issue.
Were they seriously to go on to proceed from that to say that a mere petition, a request from a minority of the population, was to be regarded as sufficient warrant for this basic constitutional change? That is the position in which they put themselves. The Government, on the other hand, have adopted the point of view that this is so important that so far from a mere petition—and, after all, technically a petition of three or four people is, I suppose, a request from the people—so far from that being sufficient, nothing short of a Referendum, the ultimate and the most drastic form of democratic procedure that exists, would be sufficient to justify a decision.
It certainly does not lie in the mouths of the two hon. Members, who unfortunately are not in their places at the moment, to press at one moment for a two-thirds majority on the grounds that this issue is so important and at the same time to argue, as one of them did, that the National Convention's decision itself should have been binding, even though it was less than a two-thirds majority. It was, in fact, a majority, I think, of only about 30 per cent. At any rate, it was a relatively small majority.
The right hon. Member for West Bristol made a point in an intervention when the junior Burgess for Oxford University was speaking, asking, in answer to these criticisms, whether any of them had been made before the second Referendum was taken. All the junior Burgess could reply was that he thought that there had been some mutterings. Really, that is not good enough. He himself has been extremely vigilant in this matter and has followed the affairs of Newfoundland very carefully and solicitously, but he had made no protest and his only excuse was that the matter had escaped his attention. All the people of Newfoundland, whose attention it could not have escaped, had made no protest, although some of them were thought to have muttered. Is it not very like the position of a boxer who gets into a ring, contracts to fight under the Queensberry rules and, when he loses the fight on points, protests that he does not like the rules?

Sir William Darling: Who did that?

Mr. Levy: I dare say a number of them have done it, although I could not give the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) chapter and verse. If they have done it, they would have received very little sympathy, and the junior Burgess for Oxford University must not be very surprised if there is little sympathy for this retrospective complaint about rules which were accepted in advance, a complaint which is now launched so belatedly.
Much the most effective passage in the speech of the junior Burgess was that in which he read certain seriously aggrieved and bitter anti-British comments. I think everybody in the House was disturbed at the picture he painted and the quotations he gave, which betrayed a real bitterness of feeling and a real development of anti-British feeling. We may deprecate it, we may deplore it, but what is the cure for it? What cure can the junior Burgess himself propose? All I understand him to propose is that even now, at this late hour, we should reverse the democratic decision of the two Referenda and impose a solution which the people of Newfoundland have already rejected, forcing upon them, at least temporarily, Responsible Government. What kind of a cure is

that? If there are people who have been tearing down the British flag, if there are people who have been repudiating their old British loyalty, how many of those who are in favour of Confederation would be tearing down Union Jacks if such a step as that were taken? What we should be doing, and the only solution we are being invited to consider by the junior Burgess, is reversing the decision of the majority in order to appease the minority, and hang the consequences. There would be such a flood of ill-feeling that that course is completely unthinkable.
A more cogent point which the junior Burgess made was this. Although the actual terms of the agreement with Canada were fully debated and canvassed in the Canadian Parliament, they were not canvassed and debated in a Newfoundland Parliament because there was not one. On the surface that seemed to me a very forcible point and it disturbed me a good deal, but on second thoughts I feel we should also bear this fact in mind: that that consideration existed when the people voted on the three alternatives in the Referendum. In other words, when the people voted in favour of Confederation they did so knowing full well that there was no Newfoundland Parliament, and that there would be no Newfoundland Parliament, to consider in detail the Terms of the Confederation. As a matter of fact, the very fact that they did so vote reflected an implicit tribute of faith in the Commission Government, because it was in the Commissioners that by inference they invested the power to negotiate on their behalf the actual details of the Terms of the Confederation. Therefore, if that decision was taken by the people of Newfoundland with their eyes open, it seems to me, effective though the point is at first sight, that even that point is reasonably answered.
I think it is not a bad thing that the Amendment has been discussed. I think it is not a bad thing—indeed it is a very good thing—that there should be reflected forcibly and honestly in this House the minority opinion in Newfoundland, but it would be a disastrous thing if we went beyond that point and sought to reverse the freely given opinion of Newfoundland.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: After a Debate has lasted 3½ hours it may well be supposed that there is not very much fresh to say upon the issue before the House. But I think there is still something to be said, and I should like to express, as briefly and as cogently as I can, my own reactions to the Debate. It seems to me that there are three issues involved in our discussion. The first is, have we reached the present position in the right way? The second question is, Is what we are now trying to do the right thing to do? The third question is, Assuming it is the right thing to do, is this the right time to do it? Those seem to me to be the three issues that are involved in this discussion.
I listened to the speech of the Secretary of State, and, as his speeches usually are, it was an extremely clear and competent and conciliatory speech; but at the end of it I had a feeling of complete dissatisfaction. I thought he scored many points, but failed to make the case, and that even if he had made the case, he had failed to justify the action proposed to be taken. He began by admitting that the position of Newfoundland was governed basically by Section 146 of the British North America Act, 1867. That Act lays down by what means the people of Newfoundland can change their status. It lays down the means. But, said the right hon. Gentleman, that does not mean that there were not other means. That is rather like saying that although the lease of a piece of property specifies that the duration of the tenancy shall be five years, that does not prevent the period from being six or seven or four years, or any other figure. I thought that was the most unconvincing argument I have heard in this House. It formed, however, the jumping-off point of the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
Then he came to the second pillar of the situation, the 1933 Act. He quoted paragraph (a) of the Annex to the First Schedule to that Act, which says that the 1933 Act shall be suspended until Newfoundland is self-supporting, when Responsible Government will be restored. But, said he, there was another provision which affected the same point, and which provided that the suspension of constitutional government was to stand until the economic difficulties of Newfoundland had been overcome, and until Newfoundland made a request for the restoration

of self-government. And, said he, since there has been no request, then both provisions fall by the way. That seemed to be to me what I believe the lawyers call a complete non sequitur. If I have a debt to pay I am not excused from the obligation of paying it by the circumstance that the creditor has not sent in the bill. It still remains an obligation to pay, whether the bill is sent in or not. Indeed, for the circumstance that the Newfoundland people did not, and were not able to, ask for the restoration of self-government, our own Government here at home are responsible, for they failed to carry out the obligations under the Schedule to the 1933 Act, one of the two provisions referred to, which provided that Responsible Government should be restored when Newfoundland was again self-supporting—which she has been now for some years.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to make a series of particular answers to particular points by way of anticipating what the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) was likely to put. At the end of the whole series of points I was left feeling very much as one does feel when one recollects the story of the man who went into a "pub" and ordered a pint of beer. Having looked at it and meditated upon it for a moment or two, he said to the host behind the bar, "I am more hungry than thirsty, so do you mind if I have a couple of cheese sandwiches instead?" The obliging host thereupon substituted the two sandwiches for the pint of beer. The customer, having consumed them, proceeded to get up and walk away. The host behind the bar called out, "You have not paid for the sandwiches." The customer said "I gave you the beer for them." The man behind the bar said, "But you didn't pay for the beer." The customer said triumphantly, "Well I did not have it, did I?" I felt the same sense of frustration at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's argument as the man behind the bar felt at the end of the argument I have just described.
The final point of justification by way of anticipation, as I think I may call it, because the attack had not then been launched, was that anyhow what we are here doing is being done in a democratic way. Now if there is any tyranny from which this country needs to be delivered it is the tyranny of the label. I am sometimes


inclined to reflect, when I see what use can be made of democratic devices, that it is easier to destroy freedom through the apparent mechanism of democracy than by the hostile assaults of the totalitarians—especially when I look at some of the activities of our modern Communists. I know our Government do not consist of Communists, but they appear to fall under the same delusion—that one can settle a problem by coining a phrase. But one does not. It is not necessarily a democratic way of settling a problem to get a bare majority one way or the other. Even the bare majority we have is not a bare majority to the people of Newfoundland, but a bare majority of those who took part in the vote. It is a minority of the total number of people of Newfoundland.
It is a common thing in our law here, and in our trade union practice, in the taking of decisions, and in estimating the majority required for taking them, to draw a sharp distinction between decisions which involve the maintenance of the status quo and decisions which involve a radical departure from it. For example, a Section of the Trade Union Act, 1913—I forget which precisely—provides that if the members of a trade union want to affiliate to an outside political party they must first of all establish a political fund. The law goes on to lay down that that can only be done by a majority of two-thirds of those voting on a resolution in terms satisfactory to the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Our own Government, although they altered other trade union legislation, have not touched the 1913 Act. They have repealed the 1927 Act, which in some ways altered the 1913 Act, but that is all. That earlier Act of Parliament stands accepted by both sides of the House. And that Act recognises that if a decision is under contemplation which involves a radical change in the status quo it is reasonable to ask for more than a bare majority.
That is one case in point. I now give another. If one looks up the rules of any trade union in Britain—I think that if this is not universally true it is generally true—one finds different majorities prescribed for winding up a union than for starting one. One finds different majorities prescribed for effecting an amalgamation between two unions than the rules normally prescribe for conducting the ordinary business of the union. There

again we recognise that when we come to take a decision which means a great change in the form of a particular organisation, the decision ought not to be taken by a mere bare majority. Evidence is required that there is a general will—not merely a tiny majority will, but a general will—on the part of the people concerned to effect that radical, fundamental change. Therefore, I find myself unable to accept the view that a bare majority, on an issue of this fundamental importance, justifies what is proposed to be done.
That brings me to the third point—is this the right time to do it?

Mr. Levy: The hon. Gentleman objects to the bare majority. Did he object in advance?

Mr. Brown: No, it has taken me threeand-a-half hours to get into the Debate today to deal with it.

Mr. Levy: Before the Referendum?

Mr. Brown: I am saying that it has taken me three-and-a-half hours to get into the Debate today.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): What about two-and-a-half years ago when a decision was made clear in this House?

Mr. Brown: The Government must not seek to justify the whole range of decisions on the criterion of whether or not my party objected at the time.

Mr. Levy: rose—

Mr. Brown: I cannot give way again. What the hon. Gentleman means is that he is not satisfied with the answer. He has a perfect right to remain dissatisfied, just as I have every right to remain dissatisfied with the Bill that we are discussing.
To return to the issue: Is this the right time to do it? I should have thought that it was about as wrong a time to do it as could possibly be considered. Here is an appeal pending before the Privy Council. I thought, until I heard the discussion earlier, that if this Bill went through it would more or less automatically dispose of the appeal. That is why I interrupted the right hon. Member for West Bristol on that point when he was speaking. But I gathered


from what he said, and the concurrence of the Attorney-General, that although we pass this Bill, the appeal to the Privy Council will still lie. We do not know what the result will be, but it will still lie.
Of all the times for effecting a fundamental change in the status, character and relations of our oldest Dominion, I should have thought that the time just before they were presenting an appeal to the Privy Council was about the worst time of all for making that change. I should have thought that this argument would weigh with the Minister and hon. Members opposite—that the more fundamental the change proposed, the more desirable it is in the interests of both parties to the proposed new union that that union should be brought about with the maximum possible degree of unity and the maximum possible degree of dissent. I should have thought that that was so obvious as to be a maxim.
If there is reason to suppose that after the elections of next May when, in the ordinary way, Newfoundland would again have a representative Parliament, and that there would be likely to be a much greater degree of support for this proposed junction with Canada then, surely it would be well worth while waiting for four or five months to get that result. It would be worth while in our own interests, because, if we accept that delay, all the charges, whether right or wrong, made against us of lack of good faith—and whether right or wrong a lot of people believe them—would disappear, and the Newfoundland people would have the feeling that they were taking this decision through their own properly constituted machinery, and not having it gerrymandered on to them, if not forced on to them. I do not say that it is being forced on to them, but there is some support for the view that it is being gerrymandered on to them. All that element of dissent and bitterness would then disappear from the picture, and there would be possibly a generally agreed union as between the people of Canada and of Newfoundland.
On those three grounds, I think that this Bill is ill-considered in point of time, and wrong in what it does. I earnestly support the plea of the right hon. Member for West Bristol—I have to be care

ful not to get him confused with the right hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). That is a point of some substance.

Mr. Stanley: We are poles apart.

Mr. Brow: I want strongly to support this plea to the Government to help the House of the difficulty which is not of the House's creation, but is the creation of the Government. It can do that by delaying action on this matter until the plea to the Privy Council is heard. I think that it is a bit grim to take away the right of appeal, just at the time when someone is about to exercise it. I think it well worth their while that the appeal should go through. I think it worth while by arrangement, if possible, to delay this Bill until after next May, when there may be some hope—and for all I know a good hope—that an agreed decision of the people of Newfoundland may be obtained for the policy which would divide them and us tonight.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: As the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) said, at this time of the evening there are not many points which have not been threshed out. The House is not discussing the merits of these proposals for confederation, but I think that those of us who have spent some time in studying them feel that there are considerable merits in them for the benefit of both Newfoundland and Canada. I think that we are all disturbed to find that there is this misunderstanding among quite a considerable minority. At the same time, I feel that one of the facts which has emerged from this Debate is that the majority of the people of Newfoundland did, in fact, vote for confederation with Canada. That is a point which, I think, no one will deny.
It may have been that responsible government could have been restored, and that if they had fought an election on party lines, they might, as the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) pointed out, have got a narrow majority of two or three votes on the same issue. I do not, however, feel that such a result would have been more accurate than the Referendum. When we study the politics of other countries on an issue such as this of union or partition, we find that if it ever becomes a


party issue the results may last for years after the real issue is dead and finished with. I believe that in the Southern States of the U.S.A., the policy of that country was affected in not a very good way by the issue of union nearly a century ago.
When we consider the merits or demerits of having responsible government and an election on party lines or a Referendum, I think that the Government have done the right thing in putting this issue in a fair Referendum to the people of the country. One thing which we cannot escape is that when this proposal of the Government was put out about a year ago, there was in fact no reaction to it in this country or in Newfoundland. That is a most important point. I spent a few days in Newfoundland at the end of August last year, at the same time as the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), and although I heard a lot about the merits and demerits of Confederation with Canada, I cannot remember at any time having had brought to my attention the point of this being the wrong constitutional way of putting this issue. I think that every opportunity was given at the time for the people of Newfoundland to make their objections to the procedure of a Referendum.
We have, I think, the undisputed fact that the majority of the people of Newfoundland voted for Confederation. It is a pity that there is this ill-feeling left among a very considerable minority of the people of that country. I think, therefore, that if the Government could do anything on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol and the hon. Member for Rugby and somehow clear this issue on a Privy Council appeal before Confederation becomes final, it would do a lot to satisfy the considerable minority, and that when the time for final Confederation comes, one would find the overwhelming majority of the people of Newfoundland, as of Canada, determined and certain that a Bill such as is before the House this evening is the best for both sides.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: It is a very good thing that on this occasion we should be discussing a matter connected with the Dominions. Although, as my hon. Friend

the Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) pointed out, it is due to a rather anomalous relationship between the nations which comprise the British Commonwealth, it is all to the good that these matters should be debated here. I followed with great care the arguments adduced this evening by the supporters of the Amendment, but I am afraid I still do not find them convincing. I do not intend, at this late stage of the Debate, to go over those arguments bit by bit; it seemed to me that the hon. Member for Bexley put them in their proper perspective.
I do, however, want to add what voice I can in reinforcement of the argument about the appeal which is coming before the Privy Council. When I first heard that that appeal was to take place, I hoped that this Debate would not ensue at this time. I should not like to try to specify the feelings one has on such an occasion, but I think it is extremely unfortunate, to say the least, that we should be deciding a particular piece of legislation at a time when matters involved in it are subject to decision by the supreme judicial bench of the Commonwealth. I want, therefore, to add my voice to the appeal of the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) and others to the Government, that they should do their best, even now, to avoid a clash.
I rather deprecate one or two things which became apparent from speeches of supporters of the Amendment. Quite a number were inclined to beg the whole question—to assume that the way they were suggesting, was the way of justice and, as the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) put it, of constitutional ethics. The very question at issue is which way is the proper way to achieve justice and to behave ethically, and we certainly cannot accept the view that those who support the Amendment have a monopoly of those particular attributes. I felt, too, that there was a great deal of exaggeration in many of the assertions that were made. For instance, the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) and others stressed unduly the amount of bitterness that may result, and no doubt will result, from this decision. To some extent, bitterness always results from any major political decision, and if the decision had gone the other way there would have been


bitterness on the other side. It seems quite wrong to magnify the extent of that bitterness.
The junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) mentioned Mr. Crosbie. Mr. Crosbie was one of the leaders of the self-government movement, and immediately the result was declared he, together with one or two others, said, "Well, I was against confederation, but now we have decided for confederation I am going to begin working willingly as a supporter of confederation." That attitude was, I am sure, taken by a very large number of those who voted against confederation; it is the attitude of democracy, and is not the kind of thing that it is wise to describe as "bitter." I suggest that the amount of bitterness left after this decision is probably a great deal less than a number of speakers have tended to suggest.
I wish now to reinforce the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), who put the decision as to the future of the people of Newfoundland in a very sound perspective. For half a century the people of Newfoundland have been pretty well unable to control their own economic fate. It was not until the war started that they were able, in recent years, to have anything like proper control over their own economic position, and that they could balance their Budget. Their former situation in which they were at the mercy of economic forces they could not control, has led to the workers in Newfoundland being in an unenviable position. I quote, because I was so struck with it myself, a sentence from a letter from a friend in Canada, a well qualified observer who knows Newfoundland and put it in this way:
The Newfoundland fishermen had perhaps the lowest standard of living in the whole North American Continent.
Now I can neither endorse nor challenge that; I am not competent to do either; but I put it before the House as a reminder, whether it is literally true or not, that the big underlying problem in Newfoundland was the very depressed standard of living of the ordinary working people there.
The people of Newfoundland are now joining Canada. They are not simply joining a Canada with different interests

from their own; they are not simply joining the Canada of the great industrial cities of Ontario and Quebec, the Canada of the Western prairies or of the British Columbian rivers. They are joining the Canada which includes a group of provinces with interests very similar to their own—the three Maritime Provinces. They will there find, in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, a considerable community of interest. They will by no means be strangers entering a Dominion in which they are made to feel like newcomers, possibly half unwanted. I speak as a former resident in one of these Maritime Provinces when I say that they look forward very much to being associated with Newfoundland in the Dominion. I think that Canada will benefit from this confederation, in addition to finding their voice, as a group of Maritime Provinces in the national affairs of Canada, strengthened by the additional representation that Newfoundland will give to them in the Senate and in the House of Commons.
The best way to look at this question is from the point of view of the past and the future of Newfoundland. The vote of the Newfoundlanders represented a "Goodbye to all that." As the hon. Member for Dagenham stressed, what they were voting against was the responsible Government of the years before 1933. What they voted for was a Canada which, in spite of one or two of the remarks of the junior Burgess for Oxford University, is treating them generously and fairly. I think the junior Burgess was a little ill-advised in one or two of his comments about the financial relationships between Canada and the new province. Dominion provincial relations in the field of finance are, of course, a major political question in Canada, continually discussed and canvassed, and the junior Burgess put that matter in a not very satisfactory perspective when he spoke only about the amount Newfoundland would be paying to Canada and the amount that Canada would be giving in subsidy to Newfoundland. The subsidies, are paid from the Dominion to the provinces, and, apart altogether from subsidies, in a confederation the Dominion has to make some arrangement for sharing the taxes. I presume that that was what the hon. Member was referring to, but that is a matter for continual discussion in Canadian politics.

Sir A. Herbert: I merely said that that is the sort of point which ought to be discussed in the Newfoundland Parliament but is not going to be so discussed.

Mr. MacPherson: I accept what the hon. Member has said. I have probably mistaken his argument. Any suggestion that there is unfairness or lack of generosity in the actual Terms would be quite wrong. It would be unfortunate, on this occasion when we are ushering Newfoundland into the great Dominion of Canada, to confine our discussion to legalistic issues, because such discussions could go on ad infinitum without any satisfactory conclusion being reached. We must take it that, by and large, the people of Newfoundland have expressed themselves pretty definitely in favour of confederation with Canada, and we must accept that the people of Newfoundland, who in the past have been buffeted by economic forces, believe that they are really doing the best for themselves by linking Newfoundland with a Dominion which has such great economic resources as Canada.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. John McKay: Many points have been raised in this Debate that call for comment, such as constitutionalism, the Referendum and whether sufficient consideration has been given to the question of Newfoundland joining Canada. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). While we all acknowledge that he is a very able man and sometimes tells very nice stories, I found tonight that both his story and his speech were rather weak. He went into the question of the trade union movement in other parts of the world, but his whole speech emphasised the fact that each problem has to be treated on its merits. It is always possible, when someone points out how well things are done in one part of the world, to put the opposite point of view. The outstanding feature of the appeal which is pending at the moment against confederation is that however valid it may be, it has all been done in a reasonable and sensible way.
When we hear all this talk about constitutionalism, majorities and so forth, my mind goes back to the other constitutional problem dealt with by this House some time ago. When we consider the past history of the Conservative

Party, the attitude adopted by some Members opposite is rather remarkable. There may be a small constitutional problem involved in this issue, but we know that the party opposite allowed a very strong movement to develop which practically broke down the constitution of this country. It struck me as rather odd when the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) took part in this Debate. We know that he has a nice personality and that he is sincere, but however sincere a person is, it does not follow that his opinions call for admiration. I was disappointed to find that the hon. Member, if he had power, would do to Newfoundland what was done to Ireland.
This Bill merely emphasises the desire for unity which exists throughout the world, both from the political and the social point of view. It is amazing to think that some Members never dream of taking decisions by means of a referendum when it is a question of getting much bigger unities, such as in the case of Western Union. On the other hand, it must be admitted that where it is practicable, where the subject matter is fairly clear and without side-issues and where ordinary people with intelligence can understand the problem, a referendum of some kind may be used effectively to get an intelligent result as far as the people are concerned. What is the position so far as Newfoundland is concerned? They have had two Referenda and a majority has been finally obtained. Figures can, of course, be manipulated to bolster up all kinds of issues relative to the subject matter, and we have had that sort of thing happening tonight, but the fact remains that the Referendum showed a result of 48 per cent. as against 52 per cent. I agree that the majority in favour of union with Canada is comparatively small, but the fact remains that the point at issue has been fully debated. This is the second Referendum and though the whole electorate is very small, 26,000 people refused to register any opinion at all. Instead of admitting that those 26,000 people are a reflection of a desire to permit unity with Canada, the opponents of this Bill try to use those people as if they were against unity. That is an example of how figures can be manipulated.
It is said that there is no legal question involved here, but that it is a question of the heart, as was said by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans). We do not deal here with questions of the heart. We try to get an intelligent decision, and if there is anything at all in the position today which should encourage us in our efforts for unity it ought to be the division of the world itself. How can we expect to see the movement for greater unity prospering throughout the world, and in Western Germany in particular, if we cannot reach a decision for a small number of people totalling about 1,250,000 in all, who have already expressed their opinion. Not only has there been a Referendum, but the representatives of Newfoundland and Canada jointly have come to a definite decision to request this Parliament to bring in this Bill.
Despite the question of appeal, I have not heard in the discussion today any suggestion that our Government are acting unconstitutionally in bringing in this Bill. The action of the Government is taken at the request of the representatives of the two countries concerned and is not unconstitutional. Whatever technical questions are involved, the mere fact that the Government are not acting unconstitutionally indicates that whatever criticisms are brought forward are not of very great substance. I have the feeling that the opposition to this Measure is without reality and that its opponents have the feeling that we are not doing something seriously wrong in passing the Bill. The opposition to the Bill has not been expressed with any great intensity or deep-rooted feeling.
We come now to the question of appeal and the petition which has been signed by 50,000 people. All of us have experiences of petitions. If the nucleus of a community want a petition for some purpose or another, it is astonishing how easily signatures for it can be procured. We ought not to allow the fact of that petition to weigh very much with us. The point we must not lose sight of is that the representatives of the two countries concerned have requested this Bill, and a Referendum has indicated the real feelings of the people. On those Mgrounds we should do well to pass the Measure.

7.45 p.m.

Sir Waldron Smithers: I rise to support the Amendment proposed by the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert), and, however inadequately, I want to put up a fight for the freedom of choice of the people of Newfoundland whatever the consequences. I look upon the right to exercise that freedom as being much more important than anything else. In the Amendment the salient words are:
for a surrender of sovereignty and a lasting change of status.
I object to the surrender of sovereignty backed by a British Government, because the honour and integrity of the pledged word of Britain under a Socialist Government is at stake in this matter. In the last line of the Amendment there is a reference to the Legislature of Newfoundland. It is important to ask what is meant by the word "Legislature." Although I have not got personal knowledge about it, I understand that this movement for confederation with Canada was carried through in a gerrymandering way, as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has said. Every conceivable device was used to try to get confederation. I am also told—

Mr. G. Thomas: Mr. G. Thomas rose—

Sir W. Smithers: No, I cannot give way.

Mr. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give an example?

Sir W. Smithers: I was just going to give an example. It has been said here tonight that the confederationists were allowed the use of the wireless in Newfoundland while the anti-confederationists were not. I am told that every subtle device was used to get confederation across, and that those who were against confederation were not given a fair chance. There is all the difference between a Commission or Convention of Government and a Parliament elected by the people on the issue of Confederation. The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) referred to a decision being taken in Canada, but I say the representatives of Newfoundland had no right to take any decision at all.
The Government of this country have got us into this awful mess. They are trying to get the best of all worlds and


whatever happens, a large proportion of the people of Newfoundland will be dissatisfied. I understand, too, that many people in Canada are dissatisfied. All this would not have happened if the people of Newfoundland had been allowed to settle it for themselves. In the first line of the Bill there are the words:
by means of a Referendum,
but I maintain that the Referendum was not in accordance with Letters Patent and was against the whole spirit of the way in which the Commission of Government was set up.
Too many bouquets have been thrown across the Floor of the House this afternoon. Although I do not think they meant it in this Bill, the Government cannot help inserting Socialistic ideas, and it is the same with everything they produce.

Mr. G. Thomas: What about bulk purchase?

Sir W. Smithers: The Government's object is to eradicate all small units, be they small Dominions or small traders. The Prime Minister has ordered a purge in this country, to a limited extent, of Communists, because we do not want the Russians interfering with our internal affairs, yet the Minister, on his own acknowledgment, is interfering with the internal affairs of Newfoundland. If the matter were only left to the people of Newfoundland to decide for themselves, I should have nothing more to say.
The Bill is unjust, dictatorial and ultra vires. We heard the letters read out by the hon. Member for Oxford University, and it seemed to me that, perhaps unwittingly, the Government are trying to carry out the wish of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to liquidate the British Empire by inept legislation. The Minister in charge of the Bill calmly says he is a party to Newfoundland's losing her sovereignty and becoming a Province of Canada. Suppose America said to this country that, as a condition of Marshall aid, we had to confederate with Argentina. What would the people of this country say? Newfoundland is a long way away, as has been said two or three times.
The case for the non-confederationists can be best summarised in the petition which they sent to this House. I am anxious to get that petition recorded in our records. Here it is:

"TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED:

The HUMBLE PETITION of the undersigned people of Newfoundland SHOWETH as follows:—

1. Your Petitioners are loyal British subjects and qualified electors of the Dominion of Newfoundland.
2. In 1933 upon the request of the Legislative Council and Assembly of Newfoundland, the Letters Patent of 1876 and 1905 were suspended and new Letters Patent were issued bearing date January 30th, 1934, which provided for the administration of the Island until such time as it became self-supporting again.
3. The arrangements made for the administration of Newfoundland, during the period of the suspension of Letters Patent 1876 and 1905 clearly indicated that:—
'It would be understood that as soon as the Island's difficulties are overcome and the country is again self-supporting Responsible Government, on request from the people of Newfoundland would be restored.'
4. In 1948 the Newfoundland National Convention unanimously agreed that Newfoundland was and had been for several years self supporting and recommended that the people of Newfoundland be given the opportunity of requesting the restoration of Responsible Government or the retention of Commission of Government. But, contrary to this recommendation, plebiscites were held in 1948 in which an issue was made of the question of Confederation with Canada.
5. In the referendum of July 22nd, 1948, less than 43 per cent. of the total electorate voted for Confederation with Canada which percentage Your Petitioners hold is insufficient to justify any change in the Newfoundland constitution as it existed under Letters Patent 1876 and 1905.
6. Moreover Your Petitioners protest any official recognition of the results of the said referendum on the grounds that

(a) the said referendum was contrary to the letter and spirit of the Letters Patent 1934;
(b) it was a denial of the majority vote of the National Convention;
(c) it did not take into account Section 146 of the British North America. Act, 1867, wherein provision was made as to the procedure to be followed in the event of union between Canada and Newfoundland;
(d) it asked the electorate to commit their country to Confederation with Canada without any negotiation of terms;
(e) it circumvented the pledge given Newfoundland in 1933, relating to the restoration of Responsible Government.

YOUR PETITIONERS THEREFORE humbly pray

(a) that immediate provision may be made for the restoration to Newfoundland of Responsible Government as under Letters Patent 1876 and 1905 and in accordance with Letters Patent 1934;
(b) that no negotiations be undertaken or concluded for Union of Newfoundland with Canada, other than by representatives of a duly elected Government of the people of Newfoundland.

And as in duty bound Your Petitioners will ever pray etc.

I am proud to think that I have been able to read that petition for people more than 2,000 miles away who cannot be here to read it for themselves.

Mr. Tolley: How many people signed that petition?

Sir W. Smithers: About 50,000.

Mr. McAdam: How many were Communists?

Sir W. Smithers: I have here two original sheets of the petition. It is obvious from the signatures that they were not very well-educated people, but humble people, who definitely were loyal to our King, country and Empire. I will read this out again, because there has been very much said about the Referendum:
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray:

(a) that immediate provision may be made for the restoration to Newfoundland of responsible government as under Letters Patent, 1876 and 1905, and in accordance with Letters Patent, 1904;
(b) that no negotiations be undertaken or concluded for union of Newfoundland with Canada, other than by representatives of a duly elected government of the people of Newfoundland. And as in duty bound Your Petitioners will ever pray,"—etc.

Quite naturally, at this late hour the best parts of what would have been my speech have already been made much better than I could have made them, by the hon. Member for Queen's University, Belfast (Professor Savory). The final vote was taken as to the form of ballot which should be submitted to the people. The Convention decided that the people should be asked to choose between continuation of the Commission form of government and restoration of Responsible Government. A Motion that Confederation with Canada should be included on the ballot was voted down by an overwhelming majority. One would have thought that such a recommendation

made by the duly elected representatives in the Convention of the people of Newfoundland would be accepted and acknowledged by the British Government, but this was not the case. Instead of, and in face of, what the Convention decided, His Majesty's Government insisted on the issue of confederation being placed on the ballot paper. I have a note here to ask the Minister to deny or to confirm that, but he has already acknowledged that he used his influence, in fact he more or less ordered, that that should be put into the ballot.
Reference has been made to the vote given at the two Referenda. I am not going to repeat that matter here again, but even the second Referendum was, I am told, gerrymandered and pushed in a most unfair way. I ask whether such an insignificant majority can be regarded as sufficient for signing a matter of such vital importance.
I want to quote something which the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Mackenzie King, told the delegation sent from Newfoundland, in January, 1947, to discuss possible terms of confederation. He said that should the people of Newfoundland indicate clearly and beyond all possibility of misunderstanding their will that Newfoundland should become a Province of Canada on the basis of the proposed arrangement, the Canadian Government, subject to the approval of Parliament—which means, of course, this Parliament—would, for its part, be prepared to take the necessary constitutional steps to make union effective at the earliest practicable date.
Could we regard such an insignificant majority of voters in an election as being a sufficient majority to decide such a vital matter as this? Could we, in the words of the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Mackenzie King, regard it as showing clearly "and beyond all possibility of misunderstanding," that the people of Newfoundland desired to confederate with Canada, remembering always that in the election in question the confederators secured only 43 per cent. of the total registered voters? As an example, reference has been made to organisations in this country, whether cricket clubs or trade unions, where a vital decision of this kind is taken not on a four per cent. majority but on a two thirds majority. This small majority is


not sufficient reason for the Government to bring in this Bill.
A great deal has been said about the Commission which has ruled Newfoundland for 15 years. In February, 1934, the Commission Government took office with with the avowed undertaking of rehabilitating the country and lifting the people out of their difficulties. This is outlined very definitely in that section of the legislation which says:
It would be understood that as soon as the Island's difficulties are overcome and the country is again self-supporting, Responsible Government on request from the people of Newfoundland would be restored.
Again come the words, "request from the people." I say that that has not yet been legally made. It can only be made by a freely elected Parliament of Newfoundland.
A great disappointment awaited the people, and I know the difficulties that the Commission Government had. Instead of their country being rehabilitated, the very opposite took place. The number of people existing on the dole ration was increasing from month to month. In 1939 one-third of the entire population were reduced to the dole level. As to the dole assistance, it was financed by Newfoundland itself, and some 20 million dollars which came from Britain were used to pay the interest on their national debt. The actions of the Commission Government were summed up in a book written by Mr. Thomas Lodge, who served on the Commission for three years. The book is entitled "Dictatorship in Newfoundland," and it contains the following passage:
The unpardonable sin of the British Government was to deprive the people of Newfoundland of their own Government and then fail to give them that measure of rehabilitation which was promised.
In 1939, owing to the war, Newfoundland had a tremendous revival. The American and Canadian Governments set up military bases, the demand for their exports grew and revenues soared, so that in a short time Newfoundland was back on her feet. But Newfoundlanders were keenly aware of the greater advantage which they would have had if they had been able to control their own destinies. For instance, under their own Government the large tracts of their territory which were given away to America for bases would not have been given away

without some quid pro quo. There could have been arrangements made for preferential treatment for Newfoundland products to go to America. The Newfoundland Government put a ceiling on wages. If a people's government had been in control of Newfoundland in accordance with the terms of the 1933 Act she would today have been one of the most prosperous little countries in the world. It is worth remembering this, because the apparent basis on which Newfoundland is now asked to surrender her country is that she as a country is not able to carry on alone.
I have been allowed to read the terms of the petition which has been sent over here. Fears have been expressed about the reaction in Canada if this Bill is defeated. I am told on good authority that the Canadians are not altogether unanimous about this Bill. I could give many reasons for that statement, but for the sake of brevity I want to quote part of an article which appeared in the "Globe and Mail" of Toronto on 14th January this year. That is an important newspaper. It says:
The arguments in favour of Sir Alan's proposals are very strong.
that refers, of course, to the junior Burgess for Oxford University—
The first is supplied by the British North America Act of 1867, Canada's constitution. Section 146 says in part: 'It shall be lawful … on addresses from the Houses of Parliament of Canada and from … the respective Legislatures of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia to admit these … Provinces, or any of them, into the Union.' This procedure was followed when the Pacific and Atlantic coast Provinces named in the section were admitted to Canada in 1871 and 1873. It is not being followed in Newfoundland's case because no Newfoundland Legislature now exists. Instead of an address from an elected Legislature of the island, the British Parliament has before it a recommendation for union from the Commission which has ruled Newfoundland for nearly 15 years. That Commission was established by Britain at the request of the people of the island, when Newfoundland went on the rocks financially and needed British help. It was agreed at the time that when the period of British guardianship came to an end, which is now about to happen, Responsible Government' would be restored in the island.
The following is important:
Many are under the impression that Newfoundland with 'responsible' rule as it existed before 1934, had a status somehow less exalted than, say, Canada or Australia. This was not so. The Statute of Westminster of 1931 described the partner nations of the


Commonwealth as 'autonomous,' 'equal,' and 'freely associated.' It named Newfoundland as one of them. Newfoundland thus had exactly the same dignity as Canada and the same freedom to appoint its own ambassadors, go to war or remain at peace, and otherwise behave as a fully independent nation. The procedure by which it is now proposed to unite Newfoundland with Canada, it is quite clear, violates the B.N.A. Act; it violates the 1934 Agreement between Britain and the island; and it ignores, or at any rate, treats as of no consequence, the sovereignty of Newfoundland. Countries which arrive at independent democratic maturity as the island did, do not usually have their future decided for them by non-representative Commissions set up by an outside authority.
I ask the Minister—if it is possible under a Socialist Government—to let Britain do the honest thing and do it in the right way. Let Newfoundland have a general election on the confederation issue, let them elect a responsible government, and let them decide for themselves whether they wish to federate with Canada or not.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I esteem myself a fortunate man to follow the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). The hon. Member hypnotises and fascinates me, but he must pulverise the Opposition. I can hardly believe when I listen to him that I am in the twentieth century. The hon. Member must have frightened the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) more than he did me. The hon. Gentleman said that he was speaking for those who could not speak for themselves. The Newfoundlanders have not been slow in speaking for themselves. I thought for a moment that he was dealing with darkest Africa.

Sir W. Smithers: I meant to say that I wanted to get the views of the non-confederationists here in the Mother of Parliaments and to get the Government to do the decent thing for once.

Mr. Thomas: I leave the hon. Member to his meditations. We might bear in mind the speech of the right hon. Member for West Bristol which I considered to be an outstanding contribution to our Debate. The right hon. Gentleman did not have an easy task. He paid tribute to my right hon. Friend while at the same time expressing appreciation of the sincerity of the junior Burgess for Oxford

University (Sir A. Herbert). I happen to disagree with the junior Burgess for Oxford University, but since the whole House must be aware that this confederation is to come about, we ought to consider it our main purpose to see that it is brought about with the minimum of ill-feeling afterwards. It is easy for us in this House to stir up the cesspools of bitterness, rancour and hatred over there, and the junior Burgess for Oxford University rather let himself down when he started quoting letters which were written in deep passion and which might well be forgotten with the passing of time but which will stand on record and perhaps be repeated in the Press over there and broadcast over the radio there tomorrow. It cannot conceivably do anyone any good at all for such letters to be read here tonight.

Sir A. Herbert: They ought to move this House.

Mr. Thomas: By moving this House when the hon. Gentleman is not going to vote against this Bill—he is wise not to—

Sir A. Herbert: I am.

Mr. Thomas: In his speech the hon. Gentleman led me to believe that he was not going to vote against it. I listened very carefully, but obviously I made a mistake. We have tonight heard expressions which I felt were quite uncalled for. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) said that the honour and good name of Britain was at stake and that in some way or another there was a breach of confidence on the part of His Majesty's Government with the people of Newfoundland. That is not so. Indeed, the good name of the Government and the British people was put behind the Referendum, and if we were now to go back upon the understanding which the Newfoundland people had when they took part in that Referendum, we should justify the charge that we were committing a dishonourable act. The Newfoundland people have themselves expressed a desire to join with their Canadian brethren. Last autumn I happened to be in the Maritime Provinces of Canada—I much appreciated the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. M. MacPherson)—and there is an overwhelming pleasure


among the people there that their brethren from Newfoundland have decided to join with them. After all, they are much closer physically than Scotland is to the South of England. They have a ferry service, trade between them is free and easy and they have ties which bind them together, and it is logical that the Newfoundland people should have voted in this way.

Sir P. Hannon: They suffer in regard to their communications.

Mr. Thomas: No doubt they suffer like the Principality in that regard. Newfoundland has had a very troubled history. Her economic history is not one about which anyone in this House can feel very happy.

Sir W. Darling: But we have not cast Wales away.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) will provoke me if he talks about Wales.

Sir W. Darling: Because Newfoundland has had an unhappy economic history, the British Government are casting her away. Is not the same argument applicable to Wales, which has had an unhappy economic history? Should Britain cast Wales away?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member should not get quite so excited, and he should leave those hon. Members who know more about Wales to talk about Wales. We shall do so, if we are called upon to do it.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Or without.

Mr. Thomas: Yes, or without. However, there is no suggestion of casting away Newfoundland. The choice before the people was quite clear; they voted, and at the time they accepted it as binding. The hostility has been whipped up since by some interested parties, whoever they may be, and the talk of gerrymandering—which the hon. Member for Orpington seems to take as his favourite slogan in life and which he threw across here tonight—can quite easily be thrown back to the people who have whipped up a campaign after an election which they had anticipated would result the other way.
There was no protest from anyone in this House that it was unknown when the ballot would take place in Newfoundland. There was considerable

publicity in the Press of this country as well as that of Canada and Newfoundland, and yet I did not receive a letter from my constituents about it, and I have many who have relations in the Maritime Provinces of Canada and in Newfoundland. Those people felt then that it was the fairest thing to do, and so did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol. I believe there is a brighter future for Newfoundland as a result of this Measure. Her peoples have congregated largely along the coasts, but she has lacked the facilities which the Canadian people have been able to enjoy and now her education service, her social services and, I trust, her transport services, will all receive due improvement and the vast mineral resources believed to be in Newfoundland might well be thoroughly developed by the Canadian Government.
The alternative might have been for Newfoundland to leave the Empire and join the United States. As some hon. Members know, that is by no means a novel suggestion; indeed, it was a topic of very lively discussion in parts of Canada. I am delighted that Newfoundland has decided to join with the Dominion of Canada. Let no one talk of the disintegration of the British Empire. This Bill is a further demonstration of the great ties that there are between all the members of the British Empire and it is an indication that His Majesty's Government act in concert and in step with our kinsfolk overseas.

8.21 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I am sure that this Debate may seem to some to have been unduly prolonged, but it has been prolonged, and I am prolonging it, because there is a sensibility in the House that what we are doing is something which all of us would prefer not to do. That was implicit, I think, in the speech of the Minister as I think it was implicit in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). I have listened to the greater part of the Debate and I do not think anyone here can have a completely easy conscience in this matter. Much has been said with which I would agree.
The speech of the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) had a very large measure of truth in it, which was supported


by the observations of the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas). There is an affinity between New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the Maritime Provinces generally and it will be a strengthening to them in Canada if they have the support of the great island of Newfoundland. It will help to maintain the balance, which is sometimes a little distorted, between Central Canada and Western Canada and the older provinces. With that I agree, but that does not wholly divorce from my mind the unsatisfactory nature of the actual arrangement to which we seem to be committing ourselves.
Some very offensive and, I think, improper things have been said in this House this afternoon. I was particularly disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) refer to a great deal of corruption in the civic life of the island of Newfoundland. That was quite improper because I am afraid that corruption is not confined to Newfoundland, and to say that a great deal of it was in that island, was unworthy of the hon. Member. He was rather supported by the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) and it was reiterated by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs. I have been in Newfoundland and I think I know something of the Newfoundlanders. I served with the Newfoundland Regiment in the 9th (Scottish) Division when many hundreds died on the Somme and I served on the Gallipoli Peninsula with them and the 29th Division. I will not allow hon. Members to suggest that in this little island, which made such manifest sacrifices, corruption is any greater than in the ranks of the party of which the hon. Member for Dagenham was at one time a more distinguished ornament than he is today. I think it an improper observation and I think it is resented by all hon. Members of this House and will be resented by the people of Newfoundland.

Mr. Parker: It is still true.

Sir W. Darling: To suggest that the setting up of the type of Commission Government which there is in Newfoundland is due to corruption is just the improper and prejudiced and jaundiced observation one would expect from someone who did not know and apparently formed the opinion about it before he went there.
Whether we like it or not, His Majesty's Government definitely committed themselves to the proposition that Newfoundland would have Commission Government and after that it would have self-government. We committed ourselves quite positively to the restoration of self-government and I do not understand the Government which has engaged in giving self-government to nations which have never had it—Burma, Pakistan, India, Ceylon and many others—hastily thrusting this upon peoples who have never had self-government before, but saying to Newfoundland, which has served us in two wars, "You were a Colony and a Dominion, a co-equal with the other Dominions, and now you are under a Commission Government and you are not to get back to self-government, but to go down the scale." While Burma rises, India rises, Pakistan rises, Ceylon rises, this old self-governing Dominion will never again have self-government, but is being deprived of that right by His Majesty's Government in this Bill this evening.

Mr. Parker: Nonsense.

Sir W. Darling: Although dead, Burns speaks:
Facts are chiels that winna ding.
This was a Colony which became a Dominion, had self-government, was promised self-government again but is not getting self-government. That is the impregnable, unshakable and undeniable fact and that is what the minority—I agree that it is a minority—in Newfoundland feel is a bitter blow. They have been faithful and loyal to this country and have accepted our word. They gave up self-government but they were promised, or at least believed it was a promise, that the process would be self-government to Commission Government, then back to self-government—[An HON. MEMBER: "If they wanted it."] An hon. Member interjects, "If they want it." Does anyone believe that a nation which has once had self-government would say "No," whatever the difficulties and problems and would not gladly accept self-government again? I know of no Government in the history of the world of what that could be said.

Mr. Levy: Since the hon. Member asks whether I know of, or could conceive of any case, I reply that I know of Newfoundland.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Member's knowledge is recently formed and very infirm. Will anyone assert that a nation which has once had self-government would willingly say, "We do not want it"? Scotland did not, Wales did not and certainly Newfoundland has not done so. By a piece of manipulation and by a piece of maladroit handling——

Mr. Parker: What about corruption now?

Sir W. Darling: —by a piece of manipulation, by ignoring the importance of the right way and the right hour and by maladroit handling, His Majesty's Government have placed themselves in this very difficult position. But whatever the difficulties, we do not better them by pretending that Newfoundland does not want self-government. Newfoundland dearly desires self-government. I need not tell hon. Members how true that is. Only in recent months we have seen a nation which was denied the right of self-government for centuries going through untold and unimaginable self-sacrifice to re-assert it—I refer to the State of Israel. If those facts have obscured the vision of hon. Members opposite, I am astonished, but they have not obscured the fact in my mind that Newfoundland, having once had self-government, desires it still. I will not have it said that this is Newfoundland's own free choice in this matter.
What can we do? We can at least practise a tactic which is a valuable one. I see no hurry about this. The late Lord Melbourne asked "Must we really do anything?" And he was one of the greatest of Prime Ministers. There is a virtue in delay as a policy, though not in delay which lets time go past while one does not know what to do. There is a time when the pot should simmer, a time when the pot should be taken off the fire or allowed to boil. I suggest that this is a time when there is virtue in delay. There is indecision and uncertainty among a considerable number of the people of Newfoundland. There is nothing in this that cannot be bettered by the passage of a little time. It is wonderful how time straightens out difficulties and leads to the disentanglement of problems.
I think that the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) was right in putting forward the view that the

May Elections might well be a point at which a further decision should be taken. In any case there cannot be any great harm in the Government delaying this Bill for a matter of at least six months. Nothing can be gained by hectic urgency. This is not a matter of the crack of doom. We have seen more important matters delayed. There is a ripeness in human judgment. Let us see whether we get the ripeness of judgment of the people of Newfoundland by delay. I consider this policy of delay is one that the Government might well consider and would be indeed well advised to follow.

8.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): It would be just to say that practically without exception, the issue in this Debate has been one of method and not of objective. That was made clear in the helpful and statesmanlike speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). It would be right to say that we are dealing more with a skirmish on his right flank than any direct attack on the Government in this matter.
The points which I have to answer are mainly legal, with one political point. The legal points are of great importance. There is one point of fact which has been brought out by the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). He threw about loose charges of gerrymandering and sharp practice and corruption. When charged to give examples he quoted one and said that there had been a monopoly of broadcasting in the island for those in favour of Confederation. I need hardly assure the House that that is a totally untrue statement. The hon. Member used the word "gerrymandering" in a very extraordinary sense. It is possible to gerrymander every form of voting except one, which is the Referendum. The Referendum does not have boundaries which can be played about with. It seemed typical of his speech that he was so wildly and loosely using carefully chosen words.
There is an important point as to why the British North America Act, 1867, was not used. That point was made by the hon. Member for Queen's University, Belfast (Professor Savory), the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) and the hon. Member for Orpington. It is really


not a question of our decision, of the decision of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. Nor is it, as has been alleged several times, due to lack of a Legislature in Newfoundland. The reason why the British North America Act has not been used is the want of an address from the Canadian Parliament. That Act cannot be set in motion without an Address from the Canadian Parliament. There is not to be and there has not been such an address and the reason was made very clear——

Sir A. Herbert: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but in the Preamble it says:
… House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, have submitted an address to His Majesty. …

Mr. Gordon-Walker: But not an address in connection with the British North America Act of 1867. That is the address to introduce the Bill we are now introducing. What we shall not have, is an address from the Canadian Parliament invoking the Act of 1867 and the reason for that was made clear by Mr. St. Laurent, the Prime Minister of Canada, in the House of Commons and it is quoted in the Hansard of Canada for 8th February. He made the position clear. He says the constitutional position has developed since 1867. The situation has changed. In 1867 it was accepted in the United Kingdom and Canada that His Majesty's—or rather Her Majesty's—prerogatives could be applied and used in Canada on the advice of the Privy Council here in London. Mr. St. Laurent says that since then, there has been a constitutional development in which His Majesty's prerogatives in Canada are exercised on the advice of the Canadian Ministers and it would therefore be improper for Canada to ask this House to operate under that Act, under which the King's prerogatives would be used on the advice of the Privy Council in England.

Mr. W. J. Brown: May I point out that that is the precise opposite to the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I quoted the Prime Minister of Canada as saying exactly that; the hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me.

Mr. Brown: In the first few words of the speech by the right hon. Gentleman he said that the King by Order in Council could use other methods than the methods prescribed in that Act.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Of course the King could use, and so can this House of Commons if it preferred to, use other methods. The point is that we cannot use the British North America Act, 1867. That we cannot do without an address from Canada and there will be no such address.

Mr. Brown: Then why did the Minister revoke it?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: If the hon. Gentleman will read the report of the speeches of my right hon. Friend and myself, he will find that they will coincide exactly, as is right and proper. The whole thing was established as long ago as 1930, when in the same way Canada did not invoke the British North America Act of 1867, although they wanted a certain part of it changed.
The second of these very important legal points is whether the Government and this Parliament have a legal obligation to restore Responsible Government. It seems to me that the attacks made on the Government really rest upon this point. It comes down to this, Was there an obligation, or as the hon. Member for Queen's University said—echoed by the hon. Member for Orpington and the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling)—a "solemn pledge" binding the Government of this country to restore self-government, Responsible Government, to Newfoundland? There is no question that the Newfoundland Act, 1933, and the Schedule to it, did undertake that Responsible Government would be restored on two conditions; one on request from Newfoundland and the other when Newfoundland was self-supporting. The second of these does not come into operation if the first is not satisfied.
The hon. Member for Oxford University went to considerable lengths in explaining why there should not be these words, "on request" in this Statute. But there they are. The words are there and they must be given a meaning. If we say that self-government will be restored on request, it automatically involves one in the conclusion that there must be some other means than self-government by which a request may be made.

Mr. Brown: What nonsense.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: It seems so to me, otherwise there is no meaning in the words, "on request." If self-government is restored it cannot be requested. There must be some other machinery than self-government. The question, of course, is by what method? There could be a petition and so forth. We agree with what the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) said about this; that we must proceed, not by ragged petitions, but by regular and proper legal methods. There has been a consensus of opinion that the right way would be a national Convention which should put down suggestions, good suggestions, for a Referendum. This opinion that there should be a national Convention did not start with this Government, but with the Coalition Government. It was announced in this House in December, 1943, and in another place by the Secretary of State in 1944. It was also strongly supported by the hon. Member for Oxford University. He clearly had in mind at that time that it was right to set up some means other than self-government by which the people should be consulted and that it should be possible for them to choose self-government or something else. On 16th December, 1943, the hon. Gentleman said:
We should announce, I suggested, that, say, two or three years after the war, or from now if you like, we intended to restore full self-government to Newfoundland unless by a plebiscite one year before that they had chosen some other form of government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1943; Vol. 395, c. 1783.]
That is exactly the policy of His Majesty's Government.

Sir A. Herbert: I bad in mind some slight modification or possible extension.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I think the hon. Gentleman had in mind Confederation with this country on the Ulster plan. That he would regard as self-government, but Confederation with Canada he would not regard as self-government. He used the word "plebiscite" instead of the word "referendum."

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Is it not one of the points there that if they had a Confederation with this country, it would always be possible for them later to ask for their independence? What possibility have we now of carrying out

our original pledge if they are confederated with Canada?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I do not know that any part of the United Kingdom has the right to separate itself from the United Kingdom. I doubt whether the County of Kent has a right to separate itself from the United Kingdom. In so far as there is a right to do that, there is a right to do it from Canada.
The other legal question upon which the right hon. Gentleman laid a great deal of weight is that of the appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman agreed that from the legal point of view our position is right. I make no pretence to be a lawyer, but as I understand the matter and as I am advised, there is no real danger of the fears—I almost said the wishes—of the junior Burgess for Oxford University being fulfilled; that there will be chaos and bitterness if this Bill is passed and then a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be given in favour of the petitioners. As I am advised, there is no real doubt that if Parliament passes this Bill, it will become law and will be effective to achieve what is contemplated. We are really dealing with a political and not a judicial matter. The responsibility is Parliament's. It cannot be dodged. We must make up our own sovereign mind on this matter. On that I think the hon. Gentleman agrees with us.
He then raised two questions. He said that there was a distinction between the moral and the legal issues. He said there were two questions upon the answers to which his views on this matter at a later stage would depend. He suggested that we should consider postponing the date of confederation. I must make it clear that we cannot hold out any hope of that being possible. Dates have to be assumed when agreements are made. Such things as adjustments of Income Tax and other taxes have to be worked out and balanced. That can only be done if a date is assumed by the two sides. The Terms which are a Schedule to the Bill actually contain this date. They do not contain any provision for changing the dates. If at this point the date of bringing the confederation into operation were postponed.


there would undoubtedly be chaos and bitterness in more than one country.
I should like to point out that the appeal came very late in the day. It has been represented by a good many Members as if this appeal was started and the Government rushed in with a Bill in order to get in before a decision could be taken. In fact, this appeal to the Judicial Committee—or the whole case—is challenging acts done as long ago as 1947. Even if we did postpone the date of confederation to another date there is nothing to stop some other case being started just at the end and the same arguments being used all over again. There would be no guarantee at all. I should like to make it clear that we have thought this matter over and that it is no good holding out hopes. On the question whether the hearing could be expedited, of course the decision in such a matter is not for the Government. If it turns out to be possible, my right hon. Friend will do everything in his power to secure expedition. But, again, the time is getting very short. We have only a month to run. If it turns out to be possible to expedite the matter we will examine the possibility straight away and we will do everything in our power. I think that that deals with the main legal points.
There are two political points. There is the question whether we were right to put confederation on the ballot paper. That was a political decision which we took. There is no question of law in that. The hon. Member for Queen's University challenged us. He asked what right had His Majesty's Government to put this matter on the ballot paper. If hon. Members take it as a matter of right, there is no doubt that we had the right to put it on the ballot. This national Convention which was set up was not a Parliament. It was set up expressly to advise His Majesty's Government on what sort of referendum or other means to use to consult the people of Newfoundland. The decision to be taken in the light of those recommendations was one which had to be taken by the Government here. We could not have hidden behind that national Convention. The responsibility was ours. There is no question that where legal right is concerned we had a duty to make

up our minds about what should go on the ballot paper.
Whether we were justified in putting confederation on the ballot paper is another matter. There is no doubt whatever that we were right. We had a legal right to do this. Among many considerations that weighed with us in deciding to put the issue of confederation as a third choice before the people was this: when the delegation from that national Convention came to the United Kingdom to talk to the then Secretary of State in May, 1947, it sought assurances from him on behalf of the national Convention whether, if there were a strong minority in the Convention wanting a choice to be put on the paper, we would agree to do so. The Secretary of State was asked that in terms when that delegation representing the Convention came over here. The Secretary of State agreed that if there were a strong minority he would pay sympathetic attention to its claims to have its view put on the ballot paper. Therefore, to a very large extent we were pledged. The vote of 16 votes against 29 is certainly a large minority.
The other reason that weighed with us more than any other was that if we had refused to put confederation on the ballot paper we would undoubtedly have been depriving a large number of people—a large minority or a large majority, because we could not judge at that point—of their right to express their opinion. There was no doubt from all the available evidence that there was very strong support for Confederation with Canada. Even if it had turned out to be the other way, and there had been a majority in favour of Responsible Government, it still would have been a right decision to put confederation on the ballot paper. As it is, that decision was completely justified in the event, but one cannot judge the event beforehand and we might have guessed wrong. Even if there had been a little in it the other way, I have no doubt that it was a proper decision to put confederation on the ballot paper.
There has been a certain amount of talk about the size of the vote, and a suggestion that a vote of this size was not sufficient. I agree very strongly with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol that here we had a choice and that we had either to accept the majority or the minority view. It is better


to accept the majority than the minority. Any tricks about a two-thirds majority mean, in fact, that we would be accepting the minority against the majority. Democratic organisations, and especially our sort of Parliamentary democracy, depend upon clear and simple majorities on clear and simple issues placed before the people. Whether the vote was sufficient for confederation was really a question for Canada to settle. Confederation was a treaty between Canada and Newfoundland, and Canada had to decide, among other things, how big the minority in Newfoundland was.
For the United Kingdom, it was only necessary that there should be a majority for us to know what were the views of Newfoundland on this question, whether the people wanted confederation or some other system of government. The variant of this argument that the vote was not big enough is that confederation was actually rejected, and one or two hon. Members argued that, because it was rejected in the first ballot, it was rejected altogether and that there should not have been a second ballot. The Government made it clear from the beginning, and long before the first Referendum, that a second would be held if there was no clear majority in the first. Therefore, that argument does not really hold water. In any case, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) said, it is very late in the day to bring up that sort of argument. Why was not this said at the time, about two and a half years ago? It seems to me that the hon. Member for Rugby was embarrassed by the question that was put to him, and that he took evasive action.

Mr. W. J. Brown: The Minister cannot complain that I did not give him advice two and a half years ago, considering the consistent and uniform way in which he rejects my advice about everything.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: But the hon. Gentleman is still giving us advice.

Mr. Brown: And still the hon. Gentleman rejects it.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: We may still reject the advice of the hon. Gentleman, but I think his advice will be stronger if it is given in time, and before the referee has given his decision. After

the referee has given his decision is a bad time to give advice, and, after all, there was plenty of opportunity—some 30 months—in which he could have given that advice. If there was very strong feeling in Newfoundland, as has been alleged, during that period, I have no doubt that it would have reached him or someone else who is interested in the matter.
I think it is right and fair to say that the Government's action is legally correct, that we have a perfectly legal case, and that ours was a politic decision. It is difficult to get these things exactly right, but, on the balance of things altogether, we think this is the best way of achieving the objectives which are almost unanimously accepted in this House. I think it is most important that we should have a unanimous decision and vote of the House on this matter. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol has said, it would be a very grave matter for the House to reject this Bill, and it would also be a very grave matter if there was an important vote against the Bill or in favour of the Amendment.
This is a democratic arrangement which has been reached after a great deal of public discussion, including discussions between Governments, affecting a number of countries within the Commonwealth. It is carrying to fruition, though by slightly different means than were foreseen earlier, the objectives foreseen 80 years ago in the British North America Act, and the spirit of that Act is now being carried out.
There has been a certain tendency among some hon. Members to talk as if Newfoundland were being cast away and sold into slavery by confederating with Canada. I hope that, rather than that view, we shall take the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas). I think the right way of looking at this is to regard it as an ampler and fuller life which is being opened out for Newfoundland in the Commonwealth. Newfoundland has decided between two sorts of self-government. It has decided to be a self-governing Province within the Confederation of Canada rather than to be a self-governing nation, and a very small one, in a dangerous and difficult world. It is not choosing between slavery and


self-government, but between one sort of self-government and another, both of them within the Commonwealth.

Sir W. Darling: One sovereign and the other not.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Certainly, but it made the choice in that matter. We must think of the future of Newfoundland not as being cast away, which is an extraordinary term to use, almost implying that Canada is some kind of dustbin. We must regard Newfoundland as a Province in a great Commonwealth country, in which it will play a continuing and very distinguished part, which the

people of Newfoundland have already played in our Commonwealth—and particular reference has been made to the part which the people of Newfoundland have played in two great wars. I think that, having taken this decision, the people in Newfoundland will play an even greater and stronger part than in the past in the Commonwealth to which they and all the rest of us are very proud to belong.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 15.

Division No. 71.]
AYES
[8.56 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Fairhurst, P.
McEntee, V. La T.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Farthing, W. J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Albu, A. H
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Foot, M. M.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Forman, J. C.
McKinlay, A. S.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Awbery, S. S.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McLeavy, F.


Ayles, W. H.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Balfour, A.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Barton, C.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Battley, J. R
Gibbins, J.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Berry, H.
Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bing, G. H. C
Gilzean, A.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Binns, J
Glanville, J, E (Consett)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Boardman, H.
Grey, C F.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Grierson, E.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Medland, H. M.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Messer, F.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hale, Leslie,
Middleton, Mrs. L


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil
Mitchison, G. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Hamilton, Lieut. Col. R.
Moody, A. S.


Burden, T. W.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Callaghan, James
Hardy, E. A
Morley, R.


Carmichael, James
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Champion, A, J
Herbison, Miss M.
Murray, J. D.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Nally, W.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Hobson, C. R.
Naylor, T. E.


Cobb, F. A.
Holman, P.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Cocks, F. S.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Collick, P.
Horabin, T. L.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Collindridge, F.
Hubbard, T.
Oldfield, W. H.


Collins, V. J.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hutchinson, H L. (Rusholme)
Pargiter, G. A.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N.W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Parker, J


Corlett, Dr. J.
Isaacs, Rt Hon G. A
Parkin, B. T.


Cove, W G.
Janner, B.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Crawley, A.
Jay, D. P. T.
Pearson, A.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Peart, T. F.


Daggar, G.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jenkins, R. H.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
John,W.
Prescott, Stanley


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Price, M. Philips


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Deer, G.
Keenan, W.
Proctor, W. T.


Diamond, J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Pryde, D. J.


Dobbie, W.
Kinley, J
Pursey, Comdr. H


Donovan, T.
Lang, G.
Randall, H. E.


Drawe, C.
Lavers, S.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Rhodes, H.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Levy, B. W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Edwards, Rt. Hon N. (Caerphilly)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Erroll, F. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Royle, C.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Scollan, T.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lyne, A. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McAdam, W.
Sharp, Granville




Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Tiffany, S.
Wilkes, L.


Simmons, C. J.
Timmons, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Titterington, M. F
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Tolley, L.
Williams, J. L.(Kelvingrove)


Stamford, W.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Turton, R. H.
Willis, E.


Steele, T.
Ungoed-Thomas, L
Wills, Mrs E. A


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Viant, S. P.
Woods, G. S.


Stubbs, A. E.
Walker, G. H,
Yates, V. F.


Sylvester, G. O.
Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Warbey, W. N.



Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Mr. Snow and


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E)
Mr. George Wallace.




NOES


Barlow, Sir J.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Savory, Prot. D. L.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Butcher, H. W.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Smithers, Sir W


Byers, Frank
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)



Darling, Sir W. Y,
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gage, C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Sir Alan Herbert and




Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Snow.]

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH FILM PRODUCTION (SPECIAL LOANS) BILL

Lords Amendment considered.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2.—(LOANS BY THE CORPORATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 35. at end, insert:
(4) The Corporation shall not make a loan to any person for the purpose of financing the production of a film or programme of films unless that person agrees to produce from time to time to the Corporation, as and when required by them so to do, an estimate of the cost of producing—

(a) that films or, as the case may be, each film in that programme of films; and
(b) any other films the production of which he finances, either in whole or in part, or in the commercial success of which he has any financial interest, at any time before the loan is completely repaid,
and in making any such loan and exercising their other powers under this Act in relation to any such loan, the Corporation shall have regard to the amount which might reasonably be expected to be received by the person to whom the loan is made from the distribution—

(i) of the film or films the production of which is to be financed by means of the loan; and
(ii) to such extent, if any, as appears proper in the circumstances, of the said other films."

9.5 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): I beg to move, "That this House doth

agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment covers points that were raised during the Committee stage of the Bill and again in another place. The effect of the Amendment will be to empower the Corporation to require any borrower, whether a producer or a distributor, to produce budgets of the films which he financed or helped to finance before his loan has been repaid. Equally, the Corporation is required always to have regard to the borrower's expectations of revenue from films wholly or partly to be financed by means of the Corporation loan, and, in suitable cases, to have regard to his expectations from other films. It makes clear that the Corporation is not expected to make loans to the producer producing films or programmes of films merely because the films have artistic or other merits and regardless of whether or not the receipts, including, of course, the receipts from overseas, are likely to cover the costs of production.

Needless to say, the Corporation, in exercising judgment on the commercial prospects of the films, will have a somewhat difficult task to discharge. Moreover the difficulty is, I think, especially great with the more expensive type of film designed for competitive exploitation in the international market. On the other hand—and I will emphasise this point—it will not ever be possible for British film production to prosper by making only small films intended mainly for the protected home market. My right hon. Friend will, therefore, ask the Corporation not only


to keep close watch on the costs involved in the projects submitted to it, but also to remember the importance, to both the industry and to the national economy, of the different types of film production, including international pictures. In appropriate cases the Corporation must be prepared to run proper risks. It will be expected—and rightly expected—to operate with reasonable prudence, but it is, after all, being established for the purpose of supporting and encouraging the production of films, and if at the end of five years the £5,000,000 remains undiminished, and if that result has been achieved only because the Corporation has, in fact, done very little business, then this Bill, which, on the whole, has been very well received, will have failed to achieve its purpose.

Let me refer briefly to paragraph (b) of this subsection, that is to say, to the films which will be financed by means of the Corporation loans. This reference is necessary, because in many cases the Corporation will look to repayment of its loans not only to the revenues from films financed by the Corporation but also to the general assets of the borrower, and this being the case the Corporation will necessarily be interested in the other activities of any person to whom money is left, and in particular will be concerned with the cost and potential revenues of other productions which he may finance either wholly or partly with other money.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: We on this side of the House are, of course, pleased to see this Amendment, because I think it is true to say that it was due to the intervention of the Opposition that the attention of the Government was directed towards the need to insert in the Bill some provision to make certain that there was not rash expenditure out of money disposed by the Corporation. However, this Amendment is extremely weak and extremely woolly, and I do not think it gives the protection to public funds, or, indeed, the direction to the industry, which would have been given if the Amendment moved originally by the Opposition had been accepted. I think that to confuse the issue by saying that because we want some lien on the assets of the distributor or producer, we are going to involve ourselves in some

spread-over with films not financed by the Corporation, makes it impossible for the intention that was behind this Amendment to be carried out. If we are to relate a given expenditure to a given set of films, then the Corporation can check the expenditure and presumably say what should or should not be done. If we are to say that they should have regard to other films which they are not financing, the task of segregation will be one which I think the Corporation is not likely to carry out satisfactorily, and, therefore, I think that the Amendment is not as satisfactory as it ought to be.
I should like to have seen the Amendment drawn in more rigid terms. While we want to see risks taken—and we know that there must be risks taken with money—I should like to have seen a definite limit put on the risks per picture, so that we would have the satisfaction of knowing that the Corporation was not lending money without any chance of getting it back. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what will happen, and whether this particular Amendment will apply to the money already loaned to the extent of £1,000,000 by this Corporation whose record of expenditure in the past has caused many of us to raise our eyebrows. Will he tell us what steps the Government are taking to see that the £1,000,000 is not used in a reckless fashion? The Amendment is by no means as satisfactory as we would wish, but we have long since learned to be thankful on this side of the House for small mercies.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I do not think that it is right for the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) to pretend that the Opposition are entitled to claim the credit of having inspired this Amendment which was made in another place, and which this House is now being asked to accept. I was looking at the Report of the Debates in Committee in this House on 8th December, from which it is quite clear that an Amendment designed to secure the object of the Amendment which was made in another place was in fact moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy), and set out in column 444 of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
While I agree with the hon. Member for Bucklow in that I do not think this


Amendment is entirely satisfactory, I think that it is important to bear in mind that it was Members on this side of the House who urged, on the Committee stage, that some such safeguards as these were desirable. May I remind the House that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough moved to insert in Clause 2 of the Bill words to this effect:
That the Corporation shall make no loans without the right to examine and amend the budgeted costs of production and without being satisfied that all reasonable economies are made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 442.]
That Amendment was not accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade because he wanted time to consider the matter, and he gave an assurance that the matter would be considered in another place.
Personally, I think it would have been far better if an Amendment in the language suggested by my hon. Friend had been adopted, for this reason: I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has tonight made a most important statement. We now know much more about the intentions of the Government in regard to this Film Finance Corporation than was known when the Bill was adopted by this House before Christmas. Before Christmas questions were asked about the extent to which this money would be available for what are, necessarily, the hazardous ventures of film production, and at that stage it was doubted whether the primary object would be that the Film Corporation should advance what is called the "front money," or the relatively safe money, or whether it was intended that this money should be used for the more speculative part of film production.
Tonight, the Parliamentary Secretary has, I think wisely, announced that it is not the intention of the Government that the Film Corporation should adhere strictly to a policy of safety-first. As I understand it, the Parliamentary Secretary has announced that it is intended that the Film Corporation should take a sporting risk in backing film productions, both those which are intended primarily for entertainment in this country, and also those on which necessarily more money must be spent, and which are intended for international consumption. That being so, it is a proper corollary that, if public money is to be spent on what is necessarily

a speculative enterprise it is essential that adequate safeguards should be taken to protect the expenditure of public money.
All this Amendment does, as I understand it, is to say that the Corporation shall, before making any loan, either to a distributor or to a producer, obtain an estimate of the cost of production. I should have thought, that even without this Amendment we might have expected any prudent lender of money to have required an estimate of what the film would cost; that what was necessary was, that the Amendment should go further and, in the language of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough, contain some machinery to ensure that the public money which is to be spent is spent wisely and with all due regard to economy; that it was not enough merely to have an estimate, but that it was essential to have a detailed estimate showing how the money is to be spent—what is to be paid for the story and the script, how much is to go into the pockets of the producer and the stars, and so on—and that there should be every possible opportunity for a vigilant check on expenditure.
It is common ground among those who are interested in the film industry that one of the root causes of the parlous condition in which the industry is today is the expenditure and waste that occurs in the production of films. Now that the Government are to be directly interested in this industry by spending public money, I believe it is time that the most careful steps are taken to ensure the elimination of all unnecessary waste and extravagance in film studios. I believe it to be quite possible to eliminate a great deal of the waste and extravagance that goes on today, without any adverse effect on the quality of films which this country can hope to produce.
Having said that, I think it is difficult to say whether one ought to vote against this Amendment or to support it. If it were possible within the rules of procedure, I should have hoped that there would still have been an opportunity, before this Bill becomes law, to tighten up this Clause along the lines I have indicated, in order to protect the public purse; if that could be done I should have hoped that it would be done, if not, I would hope, in view of what was said


on this side in Committee, and in view of what I believe is the intention behind this Amendment, what has been said tonight will be borne in mind by the Films Finance Corporation.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Benn Levy: I confess that when, during the Committee stage of this Bill, an Amendment I moved was rejected, I accepted the reasons given and thought that the matter was finished. The reason for rejecting my proposal was that the Portal Committee was being set up and that all my suggestions fell within the province of that investigation; that it was therefore appropriate to wait and take no action until the Committee had reported. But, an Amendment now comes along from another place whose ostensible purpose is to carry out the purpose of at least one of the Amendments then rejected. The fact that this Amendment has apparently been accepted by the Government can bring us to only one of two conclusions: either it has been accepted because the Government have changed their mind and no longer consider it necessary to wait for the findings of the Committee, or it has been accepted because the Government have considered it very carefully and have come to the conclusion that it does not mean anything and that therefore they might just as well accept it. My hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) made the point quite clearly, that only an estimate of costs is called for, which does not mean very much.

Mr. Donovan: It does not even do that. As I read it, it is only an agreement to produce an estimate from time to time.

Mr. Levy: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. I thought it was the shadow of an Amendment that we were discussing, but apparently it is only the shadow of a shadow. Is there really any reason why an Amendment should not be accepted by the Government which really has the effect of doing what is ostensibly the purpose of this Amendment? If the excuse is no longer valid that we have to wait for the Committee's report, will my right hon. Friend consider at this late stage accepting an Amendment in a form which will have some force. After all, what is

the purpose? The purpose is not to lend public money unconditionally. I want public money to be lent to help the industry over an awkward patch, especially as that patch is involving very serious redundancy in the studios. But I do not want public money to be lent unconditionally. The conditions are quite clear and are recognised by the House even without any findings from the Portal Committee. The conditions are that economies must be effected, and there are only two ways of doing, that; the one is on the floor of the production studio, and the other is by cutting the exorbitant tax which is levied by the distributors. The Amendment I should still like my hon. Friend to accept in the place of this Amendment was an Amendment which specified both these forms of economy, not merely one of them, and saw to it that they would be implemented. I ask my hon. Friend whether he will reconsider the point.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. J. Edwards: I am sorry I cannot accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy). We are discussing a Motion to agree with the Lords in this Amendment, and it is impossible, short of rejecting it, to do anything about it. My right hon. Friend has been at considerable pains to try to do what he thought was the best in all the circumstances, and having regard to the other inquiries and so on that are at present on foot, it would be wrong of me tonight to go into details of these things. I hope the House will accept the Motion.
As regards the money already lent, a subject raised by the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd), I am advised that the operating company will have to produce detailed budgets of all future films in conformity with this Amendment. The point about detailed estimates was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher). I should have thought it would be, in any case, for the Corporation to insist on getting a proper detailed budget, as indeed the interim company is already doing. I do not think that there will be any difficulty on that point. I hope we may have agreement on the Amendment tonight.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville: There is one point made by the Parliamentary


Secretary in his first speech to which I should like to refer. He said he thought that this money would not be used merely for productions for the Home Market.

Mr. Edwards: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I do not think I said that. What I said was that it would never be possible for British film production to prosper by only making the small pictures. I did not go any further than that, and I did not tie up the provision of the money with the whole setup of film production in any way.

Mr. Granville: I hope that that does not mean that it is the intention of the Corporation to lend large sums of money for extravagant and experimental films in an attempt to capture the dollar market, which hitherto has been such a disastrous failure. I hope that this does not mean a reversal of the general trend of opinion made quite clear on both sides of the House during the Committee stage of this Bill. It was shown that in the present set-up a certain amount between the distributor and the exhibitor is completely lost. Despite quotas and Government co-operation, at present in the film industry we read about more and more redundancy. The industry appears to be almost bankrupt, and it would be a completely unwarrantable act on the part of the Government to advance money to finance films which were experimental and to produce prestige films in an attempt to capture the dollar market, which hitherto has been such a disastrous failure.

Mr. Edwards: I was not implying that loans would be granted for what are called prestige films, but I do not want the House to think that money would not be forthcoming for the proper production of what I call international pictures. There is an overseas market which we have to bear in mind. That is all I had in mind.

Mr. Granville: All I hope is that the Corporation will get better advice than the Parliamentary Secretary's Department were able to get. I hope we are going to see this money used for the production of films which will enable the loan to be repaid from revenue. The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) called this a weak and woolly Bill. I call it wild and woolly. So far as one can see under this Amendment

the companies will not have to produce an estimate, so presumably the money can be advanced, and when some part of it is spent they will have to produce an estimate. If the estimate is not satisfactory we do not know whether the money will be lost, whether it will be repaid, whether it will lead to a stoppage and more redundancy, and whether Pinewood and Denham will follow Shepherd's Bush. I can understand the President of the Board of Trade being anxious to try to satisfy the general opinion on the Committee stage that some safeguards should be included. However, this is not a weak and woolly one; it is a very wild and woolly one. I sincerely hope that this will not be the last word and that the Corporation itself will take every opportunity of seeing that there is an effective, proper and economic control on how the money is spent in the interests of film production.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Orders of the Day — TRADE COMPETITION (GERMANY AND JAPAN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: I wish to raise a very much wider subject than the one we have just been discussing, namely, the question of the re-emergence in international trade of German and Japanese competition. I take it that the Government's policy in this regard has been settled in certain broad respects. There are really two alternatives. One is to permit the ex-enemy countries of Germany and Japan to achieve a self-supporting economy, and the other policy would be to try to keep them down and to subsidise them at the taxpayers' expense. Obviously, the Government have decided on the former policy of permitting the ex-enemy countries to become self-supporting.
However, what I want to know is whether the Government have really faced the implications of that policy. We must envisage, if German and Japanese exports get going in a big way, a loss of hard currency earnings which may in a year or two's time be quite serious, and also a loss of other export markets which


may adversely affect the Government's plans under E.R.P. and other forward planning of that character. Have the Government taken into account, in formulating their plans under E.R.P., the growth of German and Japanese competition, with all that that implies? I think the Government are taking an altogether too complacent attitude in this most important matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported as having said a fortnight ago to some visiting Germans that he was not alarmed by the reappearance of German competition. He certainly should be alarmed, though he need not be panic-stricken. There is plenty of cause for sober alarm at the trend of events. [An HON. MEMBER: "Free enterprise."] Of course, the enterprising nature of the ex-enemy countries will enforce a very much greater degree of enterprise in this country. We shall see in international trade a re-emergence of competitive conditions which may not altogether be to the liking of large numbers of people in this country.
I do not need to waste the time of the House in outlining the ways in which ex-enemy competition is reappearing. The Government have full details already. Deputations have already been to various Ministers, including the President of the Board of Trade, to outline what is taking place and the President has invited other deputations to come. The suggestion is being put forward that traders and industrialists are squealing before they are hurt, and that there is no need for their cries of anguish. That is less than fair because at the same time British businessmen have been accused by hon. Members opposite of lack of foresight and of just living for the day. Therefore, when they do look ahead and point to a new development in international trade which may have quite serious consequences for this country, do not accuse them of squealing before they are hurt; they are exercising reasonable foresight and showing a justifiable regard for developments which are taking place.
It is quite clear from authoritative reports in American newspapers that German exports are contemplated on a vastly increased scale. Figures have not been published authoritatively in this country, but in many earlier examples we have found that American newspapers

have very accurately interpreted what will shortly be an official report. American newspapers are saying that German exports are to be planned to reach a level in 1952–53 of between 130 and 160 per cent. by volume of the pre-war level. That represents a tremendous increase on Germany's pre-war competitive power. In another American periodical it was stated that in 1953 German exports would be valued at something of the order of 3,000 million dollars, another very significant figure.
German goods are appearing in many fields. The German motor car. the Voölkswagen, is being sold in America in competition with our own cars. German scientific instruments are being manufactured in large numbers and represent a very real threat to our own scientific instruments industry which is of such vital importance in war-time and which certainly must be protected as one of our strategic assets. In machinery, shipbuilding, and—although one thinks of this primarily in connection with Japan—in cotton textiles Germany is emerging as a considerable competitor. I understand that in Brussels German textiles are available for purchase to be sold in the Belgian Congo as an alternative to British, cotton goods. Germany's textile production may well be a threat to some of Lancashire's activities.
The Government may answer—as indeed they have answered Questions—that with the reduced currency rate of 30 cents to the Deutschemark there is no longer any real threat, but that is no answer at all because already German traders are pressing for a decrease in that rate, which they claim is too high. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister is able to deny that they will be given that reduction in the near future. We have also to remember that at present Germany is producing only at about half capacity, and when she gets fully under way her costs will be far lower than they are at present, whereas British costs are constantly rising and we cannot expect much in the way of economies, as we are at present more or less on full production. I need hardly remind the House that during 1948 over 6,700,000 people received wage increases despite the formal stop on wage increases introduced by the Government a year ago.
Our costs are continually rising in regard to wages and, of course, in regard to new plant and buildings, whereas German costs are not so rising and, indeed, German industry has many advantages which are at present denied to British industry. One is that in many cases their assets have been completely written off and they have no encumbrances of that kind, and as a result of bombing many factories are being completely reorganised and re-equipped with new plant. They are not encumbered with old plant or old buildings, and so they can get away with a very good start as their production campaign gathers momentum.
Turning to Japan, our other great industrial competitor, we see there an economy somewhat similar to our own.

Mr. John Hynd: I noticed the hon. Member referred to shipbuilding as one of the competitive factors and I assumed he had in mind Japan, but now he is turning to Japan. Did he really mean that German shipbuilding is a competitive factor at the moment?

Mr. Erroll: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I meant Germany, and I am going to refer to shipbuilding again in the case of Japan. It is at the moment a cloud no bigger than a man's hand, but the Germans are in fact quoting prices to Scandinavia for ships. While they may be turned down and not allowed to build ships, the fact that they are allowed to quote, and to quote low rates, is a matter of consideraable significance to the shipbuilding industry of this country. I cannot think that they will for ever be denied the right to build any ships of their own. Although I do not wish to appear as an alarmist, I want to indicate the trend that is taking place.
In Japan we see an economy similar to our own, a large industrious and industrial population depending upon its industrial exports for the import of food and raw materials. We find that in Japan they are competing with us on a growing scale and in a number of ways. Cycles, watches and clocks, textiles, of course—but do not think it is confined to textiles—ceramics, pottery, shipbuilding and ship repairing. I have given these examples

of where Japanese competition is reappearing. Only on Monday there was an announcement from General MacArthur's headquarters that he was permitting the Japanese to send a trade mission to South America, one of those hard currency areas which we are very anxious to hold.
It may be said that in the case of Japan the Americans will agree with us to ensure that Japanese prices are about the same as those prevailing in the rest of the world. I cannot believe that that situation is likely to arise. I feel sure, whatever agreement is reached, that General MacArthur will always ensure that Japanese prices are a little bit below our own, so that Japan will always continue to sell her goods in preference to ours. The Americans are determined that Japan shall sell her goods and sell them successfully, so I do not think that we can look with confidence to any assurance, however well-intentioned, that Japanese prices will be kept up to the level of our own.
Lancashire views Japanese textile competition very seriously, although Lancashire is well able to sell all that she produces. Lancashire hopes that Japanese competition will not be concentrated on the textile industry. She hopes that Japan will be allowed to spread her activities and to enter such fields as shipbuilding and ship repairing. While that is a very understandable point of view, it does not help the United Kingdom economy as a whole, because it merely means that we are, if I may use the phrase, exporting potential unemployment from Lancashire to Jarrow and the shipbuilding areas. We are not alleviating the economic position taking it overall. Nevertheless, it obviously would be a step in the right direction if Japanese competition was spread over a number of industries and not concentrated on Lancashire and her textile industry.
I have tried to give briefly the trend of events as I see them at the moment. I think we should look at the likely trend of events in the future. We are witnessing the creation of a vast German export capacity. Having sunk so much time, material and effort into the creation of this capacity, is it likely that the Germans will be slow to make use of it? There will be a tremendous pressure of ex-enemy manufactured exports to


secure the raw materials which they require.
The situation is very serious because although the world population is growing, world food production is declining. We shall see among industrial countries—in other words former enemy countries and ourselves—an increasingly severe competition for the declining food production. We shall see the foods that are available forced up in price and the general level of prices of manufactured goods forced down and down by the competitive struggle between the countries. Not today, not next year, but over a period of, say, five years, I think that we can quite well expect to see something of that sort happen. It should be remembered that because a number of ex-enemy industries are not permitted, there will be all the more intense competition in those industries which are allowed to start again. I want to know—I hope that we shall be given a good answer by the Government tonight—what the Government are doing about this problem. I do not want to be told that they are not alarmed. I do not want to hear merely that they are prepared to receive deputations. I want something much more definite and positive than that.
I wish to continue on a constructive note and to make a few suggestions of a general character. This problem is far too serious to be disposed of in any mere party spirit. First, the Government have stressed repeatedly that competition should be fair. That is a good start. Let us be fair to our own businessmen first. Let us make sure, if there is to be a competitive fight, that British businessmen do not go into the struggle with their hands tied behind their backs. Let us make a start with a real bonfire of industrial controls. Let us really make an effort to get rid of the industrial controls—[Interruplion.] I stress the word "industrial." Many are well known to be unnecessary. Let us get rid of them. Let us create an atmosphere of freedom and enterprise—

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Can the hon. Gentleman suggest any single industrial control which he considers to be unnecessary?

Mr. Erroll: I will if I get another Adjournment.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I am sure that the Chair would allow it now.

Mr. Erroll: I will not give one just now. There are hon. Members opposite who wish to speak. In any case, I do not wish to anticipate the very satisfactory answer which I hope the Minister will give on 17th March when I have a Question on that very subject. Let us take one thing at a time. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member really wants an example, let us get rid of the Raw Cotton Commission and have free buying and selling. That would do more to help Lancashire's textile industry than anything else.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): That would require legislation to repeal an Act of Parliament and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman is out of Order.

Mr. Erroll: I apologise for thus straying into the morass towards which hon. Gentlemen opposite were trying to drag me.
Second, we require speedy allocations of foreign exchange to enable a businessman to get abroad quickly to grasp at a fleeting export opportunity. That is the type of practical detail to which I hope the Government will give increasing attention.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: rose—

Mr. Erroll: No, I cannot give way. The hon. Member can make a contribution later. My third point is that manufacturers should be given a real opportunity to modernise their plant without having to do it almost entirely out of taxed profits as at present. There must be a much more generous policy towards the use of untaxed profits for plant modernisation and the re-equipment of factories on modern lines.
Fourth, we in England must know what Germany and Japan are doing. We must be given full information about the Government's plans. It is not enough for us to go jogging along hoping that all is well. It is essential that we should know what is going on and what the Government are doing if we in Britain are to be able to meet this competition effectively. Fifth, there should be an immediate inquiry into the whole question of the present competition from Germany to see if it really is fair. There is a good deal of evidence of the subsidisation of German


wage rates to a certain extent out of the British taxpayers' money and out of the United States taxpayers' money. We should inquire into the amounts of these subsidies to see whether the exchange rate is really correct in order to make sure that the competition is completely fair.
Another point I want to make is about our own workpeople. The Government may know about this challenge to our industrial economy, but what is the view of the trade unions? Have they been consulted and are they behind the Government in its present attitude? I very much hope so, and that all is satisfactory, but I should like to have an assurance on that particular matter. Have the Government really thought out the implications of their own policy in this matter? Are the trade unions going to play their part in reducing working costs, and are they prepared to contemplate certain areas of possible local unemployment resulting from the Government's policy in regard to competition from ex-enemy countries? Are the unions prepared to accept that as part of the price of getting our ex-enemies on their feet again, because the competition is going to be strong, and may well result in orders for certain important commodities not coming to Britain at all—[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite think this is a laughing matter, I certainly do not agree with them.
Next, I would draw attention to the extent to which the British Government can use their influence in this matter. After all, this competition has to be met. We cannot just go down under it; we have to sheet it and be very practical about it. I know that America really decides in Germany and also in Japan, but there is no reason why we should not use our influence to the full. It may well be that America is thinking that it would perhaps do Britain no harm to have a bit of a tough struggle in the export markets. If that is America's view, let us know the worst and prepare for the tough struggle. Let us, at least, know what the Americans' views are on this matter.
I believe that the Government can influence policy in two very important regards, though in a third I do not think the answer is at all even. How are we to meet the challenge of countries such as Germany and Japan, which are prepared

to work harder and for longer hours than we are in order to get food and raw materials? In the last resort, it comes down to that, and is simply a question of who is prepared to work hardest, longest and best. The Minister shakes his head, but I should be glad to hear his reply later on.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Is no account to be taken of the type of stuff we are selling, the craftsmanship and the methods of production, apart from the hours of work?

Mr. Erroll: I sincerely hope that regard will be paid to those matters, but it is the overseas customer who will do the regarding, not ourselves. Why do Germany and Japan require such a high level of exports? Of course, it is to meet a very high level of imports. Surely, the British Government can influence the policy pursued in Germany and Japan by insisting on much greater agrarian activity?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): The hon. Gentleman talks about a very high level of imports. I wish he would say what he means by that, because it seems to me to be a rather sweeping assertion about the present standard of living in Japan.

Mr. Erroll: It is consequential on a very high level of exports. For what are the exports going to pay, except imports?

Mr. Edwards: Surely, it all depends on whether the country concerned depends to a very large extent for raw materials and food from outside its own territory or not? If it does, it will have to bring in a good deal.

Mr. Erroll: Surely, that is exactly the case with both Germany and Japan? Germany has lost its Eastern bread basket and will export from its industrial West in order to import food. Japan, having lost her Imperial possessions on the mainland of Asia, is now unable to produce enough food, but could produce very much more if the emphasis were on home food production and not purely on the export of manufactured goods. I suggest that the Government could influence policy very considerably in that regard, and that that is one of the ways in which we might be able to reduce the threat.
This is, of course, not a full answer, but everything helps in solving a great and intractable problem of this character. Indeed, a policy of reasonable emigration might help, particularly in the case of Germany. I do not know to what extent that has been considered and worked out, but why not let some part of the German population go to other countries, not to produce more manufactured goods, but more food? If that were done, it would be a double alleviation; it would reduce the amount of exports from the German homeland for the purpose of bringing food into Germany, and the men who left Germany would themselves be helping to grow more food and thus alleviate the only too well-known world food shortage.
A similar development might possibly take place in the case of Japan. The Japanese could well go back to their old territories instead of invading markets traditionally belonging to the West. If they grew more food in Korea and Manchuria, and traded a bit more with those territories, the immense pressure which they are going to build up to export manufactured goods into our markets would be reduced. As I have said, I do not think these are complete answers, but I have tried to be constructive and to make one or two suggestions of a long-term character as to how this threat could be partially met and how we need not just sit back and "take it." We could do something about it—indeed, quite a lot. I believe that the Government must act now instead of leaving it until it is too late. Whatever the form of Government in the years to come, our trade problem will always be with us. I hope that the Government will act now in a statesmanlike way in order to prepare the way for a prosperous future.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Albu: The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) has raised a very important matter, but I felt that at the end of his speech he was returning to the policy that was being pursued at the end of the war of the Morgenthau plan in Germany which I thought we had abandoned. It is necessary that we should keep a sense of proportion in this matter, and although I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman of squealing, I am not at all

sure that British industry is not crying out a long time before it is hurt.
The figures for the engineering industry, an industry with which I am acquainted, show that last year the exports from the Bizone of machinery and vehicles was something between £10 million and £12 million, while British exports of similar products during the same period amounted to £55,500,000. It is true that German industrial production is rising, but it will be a very long time before it catches up with those figures. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that British industry has had three years of very great advantage. We have obtained the secret processes and prototype machines of the whole of German industry. The German steel production is restricted, and, although it has reached the level of something over 6 million tons a year, it will be a long time before it reaches the permitted level, which fact must, in itself, restrict the export of engineering products.
Finally, the conditions under which the German workers are living must restrict their output for a very considerable time to come. However, I agree that there are very serious signs that this will become an important problem in the future, though I believe it is a longer term future than some think. This will be particularly the case in certain industries. The hon. Gentleman referred to unfair competition. It is an extremely difficult thing to define unfair competition. After all, we ourselves to some extent subsidise the iron and steel industry. To some extent we subsidise the growth of the watch and clock industry. Even the United States subsidises its shipping industry. If we go on to make an examination——

It being Ten o'Clock the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Bowden.]

Mr. Albu: If we were to go into an examination of this problem I think we should find ourselves in very great difficulties. I do not know how long the German workers will stand the conditions under which they are working at the present time—the extraordinary difference between the great luxury in which many


employers are living in the great industrial towns and the very low wage rates of many German workers. Figures which I have show that in the British zone in June last year men in the engineering industry, working an average of 39 hours a week, were getting £3 4s. a week, and that women, working just over 36 hours, were getting £1 16s. Since then there has been a 15 per cent. increase, but I hope the pressure of the trade unions in the Bizone will shortly rectify this appallingly unfair situation.
The February issue of the journal of the boilermaker's union in this country shows that ship repairers' wages in Germany were 1s. 9d. an hour as against 3s. 6d. an hour in this country, and I believe that what the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale was referring to was not so much ship-building as ship repairing, in which there is already beginning to be German competition. As a matter of fact, we have abandoned the Morgenthau plan, the plan to destroy German industry, and in those circumstances it is inevitable that competition should arise. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale quite rightly, I think, referred to the fact that the industries of Europe are not complementary but competitive. It really is a serious problem that in the long run in these competitive industries, the dense populations of Europe will be competing for their necessary raw material and food imports from the raw material producing countries.
Although there is absolutely no danger in the short-term I am sure the Government should be considering possible developments in the longer term. We must plan to develop the industries of Europe to avoid them competing in an effort to pay for their necessary imports. I believe that so far as Germany is concerned the quickest way to get something done is that, as soon as we can get something like a responsible governmental authority in the Western zones, we should bring the Germans into full discussion in a European co-operation organisation and make them face the facts, as we have to face the facts, of this problem of Europe's need for exports to pay for her imports. They may have to face the fact that in some industries—I mentioned the watch and clock industry and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale

mentioned the scientific instrument industry—there are strategic reasons why those industries should be brought from their original main centres, which were in Germany. The Germans have to face that fact as a strategic fact of necessity to us. We in turn may have to see that we do not subsidise, support or protect industries which perhaps in the past have been more specialised in Germany, otherwise we shall only lead to frustration for our own workers and our own manufacturers.
I realise that this is an extremely difficult problem. I do not believe there is any solution along the lines of free for all, which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale seemed to suggest, and of having a competitive scramble. As a matter of fact, the only solution in the end is the solution of an expanding world economy and the industrialisation of large parts of the world at present not industrialised, so creating, not as the hon. Member seemed to think a reduction in food production but a very great increase in food production and an increase in the demand for industrial goods. I hope this is the policy which Mr. Truman had in mind when he talked about his plan for world development. I think it is the only hope in the end and I hope the British Government are taking the American Government upon this very important matter.

10.5 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I think the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) for introducing this subject tonight. I agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) that while we cannot at the moment point to any serious dislocation of labour in this country, or any new competition against us, nevertheless, the time is coming when the Board of Trade ought to give careful thought to future policy to deal with the competition that will arise.
As an old Member of this House I can recall what took place after the first world war, when we had to pass an Act to protect valuable key industries essential to our defence. Subsequently, even so, we found competition becoming more and more acute, and before the outbreak of the last war, we were face to face in many instances with most acute competition from Japan.


Anybody familiar with the textile trade in Lancashire will know of the serious situation that arose because of the intensity of Japanese competition. I, in the engineering world, had to sell in Bengal and Bombay bicycles made in Birmingham against bicycles priced at £1. We found ourselves in a helpless situation. I agree with my hon. Friend that we cannot at the moment achieve any substantial, progressive, positive policy, but I think the Debate will be found to have been valuable as a means of inducing the Government to work out a policy for the future, if the Parliamentary Secretary and the President will keep a constant watch on developments as they take place. Indeed, they should above all not let the British taxpayers' money or the American taxpayers' money subsidise competition against the manufactures of this country.

Mr. Stanley Prescott: Why should not a policy be formulated by the Government now? Is not my hon. Friend aware that Lancashire is very concerned about this matter? It is not for the textile industry to formulate a policy, but for the Government.

Sir P. Hannon: I appreciate the point raised by my hon. Friend. I should not dream for a moment of accusing this Government of being a Ministry of all the talents, and so I would give them a little time to work out a policy. Instead of their hurrying to do things, as they have, and as a consequence of which they have rushed through a whole mass of legislation, I would give them an opportunity to work out a thoughtful, constructive policy, and constructive measures, with some essence of permanence in them, and so make the country feel they are alive to the danger to employment here, to which this country will be subjected by the development of foreign competition.

Mr. Tiffany: Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that competition is bad and co-operation good?

10.9 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: I realise that time is short, and I do not want to deprive the Parliamentary Secretary of an opportunity of making a full reply to the Debate, but I should like to support one or two of the points made

by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu). I am grateful to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) for raising this matter because it is a most important subject and one to which the House may have to turn its attention more in the very near future. However, as my hon. Friend said, it is important that we should not become panicky about this.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, when he talks about Germany's having got off to a good start, and having certain advantages over us in the export field, is really talking nonsense. The export figures themselves demolish that argument at once. It is general knowledge that not only is German production very low compared with ours in export goods as well as in other goods, but that we have deliberately imposed on Germany a policy which prevents her from getting off to a good start, whereas we have investigated all the Germans' trade secrets, and abolished their patent rights and offices, and left them open to the whole world.
Moreover, we have taken Germany's most valuable machines. When the hon. Member for Altrincham says Germany is now in a position to build and use new, up-to-date machinery, do not let him forget that we have under the reparations scheme laid it down specifically that the reparations plants we take shall be the most up-to-date and effective plants, and that Germany shall be left with the least effective and least up-to-date. I do not think it is being quite fair to say that Germany has all the advantages and has got off to a good start.

Mr. Erroll: I meant that she will get off to a good start as her production increases.

Mr. Hynd: We have had three years' start, and if British trade cannot compete with Germany today, having captured the markets and with all the advantages which she has, it is hardly worthy of the name British. I have had letters from firms in my constituency who agree with me that British quality has nothing to fear from German or any other competition. I have had letters from Sheffield firms which say quite plainly that they are in no way afraid of German competition with regard to quality or even salesmanship.
Our own policy—and this is why I am glad this subject has been raised, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will take it further in his own Department—is in fact making it essential that Germany should use every artifice she can to try to get her exports abroad. We do not allow them shipping facilities, and Germany must use foreign bottoms for every ton she exports and every ton she imports. She has to make up for this unnecessary expenditure by other kinds of export which will be in direct competition with our trade. Similarly, in the production of roller bearings which Germany could well produce for her own purposes in Europe, we are forcing her to import them, and therefore she must export something else that is vital to our policy.
I hope that this matter will be speedily reviewed because we cannot go on preventing Germany from building ships and from having some kind of mercantile activities. It is interesting to note that the Japanese level of industry was fixed after the German level of industry, and that in the Japanese level of industry there is provision for Japan to build ships and to engage in mercantile activities because of the fact that it was realised that a mistake had been made in the case of Germany. The sooner we admit that mistake and get back to reasonable economic conditions the better. We are not afraid of Germany quality or salesmanship or afraid of any advantages that Germany may have. We are afraid of costs. The Potsdam Agreement lays down—and we are following the policy—that Germany shall not be permitted to enjoy a standard of living higher than the average for the whole of Europe including the Balkan and other countries. If we insist that the German standard of living shall be deliberately kept low, how are we to ensure that we are going to have competitive costs? I do not see how it can be done.
When the hon. Gentleman says that the only answer can be in the workers of this country lengthening their hours and working for less wages, I disagree. The answer is in the other direction, and not only should Germany be brought into the new organisation for a united Europe, but there is an organisation called the International Labour Organisation which was precisely established for ensuring

stability and a common level of conditions in order to assist not only in increasing the standard of living throughout the world but in maintaining a balanced and fair level of trade. Germany should be in the I.L.O., and the quicker she is brought into this organisation the better for all concerned.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It had no effect on Japanese competition before the war.

Mr. Hynd: It had no effect on Japanese competition before the war because Japan did not take any notice of the Conventions, but Germany did, until she withdrew from the I.L.O. after Hitler took over. I believe that Germany today is in a mood to participate in these international organisations. If the present policy goes on very much longer of these deliberate restrictions on development in Germany, we shall be destroying the only opportunity we have or are likely to have at any time in the foreseeable future of developing a democratic Germany, because we shall have destroyed the confidence of the German people in those democratic elements which we encouraged to emerge after disarming Germany and removing the worst of the Fascist elements in control. My conclusion is quite opposite to that put up by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale. It is not that we should start cutting down on this side, but that we should bring Germany into line in these international organisations.
The problem of the future of international trade, in Europe in particular, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton pointed out, will be solved by the co-ordination of economic and trade activities through the European organisations that are being established, for which all credit is due to the Foreign Secretary. That is the only way, and unless and until Germany is a full partner in these activities we shall have to face up to quite intensive competition which, although over a narrow field, is an intensive competition to which we ourselves are responsible for driving Germany.

10.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): Tonight the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) has drawn our attention to an extremely important


matter. I must confess to a certain disappointment, though, at what he had to say, because he did beg a considerable number of questions, and matters which he ought at least to have tried to demonstrate he took for granted. Moreover—and I think this is important—there was lurking behind almost every argument he used a quite clear mercantilist fallacy. He was thinking in terms at least 200 years old, and implying throughout all he said that there was a constant volume of world trade, and that if somebody got more then inevitably somebody else got less. Such a view must be controverted whenever it is stated, because there can be no way through for the world if we behave on that assumption.
Similarly, the hon. Member also implied that the country whose workers worked longest inevitably got the market. This again is not true. In considering who, in fact, gets a market in competition one has to bring a whole lot of considerations into account: how much capital equipment the workers have for use, their standard of efficiency and traditional craft, and a whole host of other things, which quite often mean that the workers with the highest standard of living are, nevertheless, able to compete successfully with the workers with the lowest standard of living. I hope I do not misinterpret the hon. Gentleman, but he did seem to me to have both these fallacies clearly behind all he was saying, and it is important that they should not go unchallenged.
I must, however, make it plain that the Government are fully aware of the potential threat to British exports which the revival of both German and Japanese competition presents. But there is one basic fact which we must recognise, and that is that both Germany and Japan must, as soon as is practicable, earn sufficient by their overseas trade to pay their own way, and so cease to be pensioners on our own taxpayers and on those of the United States of America. I do not suggest that there should be extravagant standards. As my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) pointed out, that is no part of our intention. But it is part of our intention—and I hope the House accepts this—that both these countries should pay their own way. Naturally, if we accept this, as I

think we must, then certain implications will flow from· it and, as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale himself suggested, we have to consider the effects, both present and future, on our own trade of what I believe to be this inescapable fact.
If I say more about Japan than about Germany it is for two reasons: first, because it is not very- long ago since my right hon. Friend made a very comprehensive statement about German competition; and also because some of the important issues there raised have just been presented to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe, and I need not repeat what he said. So far, then, as Japan is concerned, I would say—in spite of what the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale said I ought not to say—that Japanese competition is clearly a future rather than a present threat. I do not know what he meant by the phrase "sober alarm." I thought the two words rather contradictory. There is no need for alarm, and we do no service, to Lancashire of all places, if at the present time, when they have recovered their nerve and are reorganising and really putting their backs into a great export drive, we imply that around the corner there is this terrific threat.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Japanese textile machinery industry is practically intact, and that if iron-ore, coke and coal were available the Japanese textile industry could be rehabilitated very quickly? If that be correct, as I think it is, having been there, what is the policy of the Government in regard to making available coke, coal and iron and steel for rehabilitating the Japanese textile industry?

Mr. Edwards: Obviously, I cannot be diverted from my main argument to answer a series of questions on this point, but I do not accept the view of the hon. Member, nor do I believe that the textile machine-making industry of Japan could re-equip Japanese industry in the period I indicated when I used the phrase "just around the corner."
How much damage was inflicted on Japanese industry? If we take the period from 1930 to 1934 as being the last normal period before Japanese production was distorted by the emphasis placed on


the heavy industries for war production and compare that with Japanese production in 1948, the latter still represents overall only 60 per cent. of the former, and that percentage was exaggerated because of an increased production of minerals which slightly exceeded the 1930 to 1934 figure. The production of textiles which has figured so largely in Japanese exports in the past was little more in 1948 than 25 per cent. of the figures for the base period. Before the war Japan possessed some 13 million cotton spindles, of which eight million were in operation. There remain at the present time something like 3,364,000, of which 2¼ million are actually operating. It is true that this number is slowly increasing, but the comparison is very significant. If we take the export figures, Japanese pre-war exports of cotton fabric averaged 2,126 million square yards in the base period and rose to a figure of 2,658 million square yards for the period 1935 to 1939. In 1947 they amounted to 317 million square yards, and in 1948 they fell to 285 million square yards.
And so I am of the opinion that the threat, while it is something that has to be taken into account, is not in any sense an immediate one and is no cause for any kind of despondency. Indeed, the emphasis being placed on Japan now is on other industries, such as engineering. Plans published by the Japanese Economic Stabilisation Board seem to assume a continued tendency for the light engineering and similar industries to develop more rapidly than textiles, and I hope that that will be so, because the greater diversification of Japanese industry the better

Mr. Prescott: I understand that a certain commission went out last year to negotiate an agreement and that before that agreement was negotiated the British industry was consulted. I am informed, I hope inaccurately, that other industries have gone to Japan to negotiate similar agreements. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether that is correct or not?

Mr. Edwards: If time permits, but time is getting on.

Mr. Prescott: The answer is either "Yes" or "No."

Mr. Edwards: I hope to say something about that agreement. What I wanted to say is, of course, that what is disturbing to British industry is the fear that we will have Japanese prices and trade practices in the future which may lead to what, rightly or wrongly, is called unfair or cut-throat competition. So far as this is concerned, it is the policy of the Occupation Authorities to fix the export prices of Japanese goods at the world price for comparable products. It is obvious that mistakes may sometimes be made, but we are always ready to take up with the Occupation Authorities cases in which the prices of Japanese exports are clearly unreasonable.
The good will of the Occupation Authorities on this point is evidenced by the fact that they have agreed to see two representatives of the British woollen industry and to discuss with them the proper pricing of Japanese woollen exports. It may be that further discussions can be arranged between other British industries and their Japanese counterparts. It may be in due course we shall get some results from the talks which Sir Raymond Streat had and about which he has made a statement on the combined action with industry in America. We have also, in every way that we could, backed the policy of the Occupation Authorities, to raise the general standard of living of the working classes in Japan, to which I attach great importance.
If I may I should like to say a word or two about the trade agreement. The agreement was signed in November and covered trade with the bulk of the sterling area and Japan. That agreement does not on either side carry with it any obligation to purchase particular goods, but it was an attempt to place trade with Japan on a sterling basis and to assess its probable volume. We shall have to review this whole matter, and before it is reviewed we shall consult as widely as possible.
I have very little time left, but I would like to say a word in regard to German exports. It is possible that when we drew up our export programme last year we may have under-estimated the speed of Western German industrial recovery because of the slow progress made until the time of currency reform. Since then there has been a remarkable


increase in industrial output, but the programme which the western Germans have put in is, after all, equal in status to all the other programmes at present under discussion in Paris. There is nothing final in the form in which it has been brought forward.
In conclusion, we have tried to have regard to the possible consequences of German and Japanese competition in framing our own plans, but the best way to hold our own in international competition must be the traditional high quality of British goods and their production with ever-increasing efficiency. With the increasing needs and the increasing population of the world, there should be opportunity for all countries to achieve a great increase in the balanced flow of trade. That I believe is fundamental and we must strive in every way we can to maximise trade. If we do then the threat of competition becomes less in accordance with how far

we are successful, in fact, in expanding the total volume of world trade.

Mr. Stanley Prescott: I have a quarter of a minute left, and I want to say that I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman has said, particularly with regard to Japanese competition. I am very disappointed in what he has said. The whole of Lancashire is considering this matter. I visited Japan recently and I know a certain amount of what is happening there. I listened to what the Parliamentary Secretary had to say with great interest, because I know we are concerned in this matter, and, speaking personally and for most of the people of Lancashire, I am very disappointed at what he had to say tonight.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.